SPO irin 
 
 no' 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Chap... Copyright No.. 
 
 Shell _. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST 
 REFORMATION* 
 
 (From 1609 to 1641 A. D.) 
 GEO. A? tOFTON, D. D., 
 
 Author of Bible Thoughts and Themes, Character Sketches, Harp of Life, 
 
 A Review of the Question, Review of Dr. Thomas on 
 
 the Whitsitt Question, etc. 
 
 'Succession is Antichrist's Chief Hold. 
 
 Thomas Helwys. 
 Amsterdam William Piggot. 
 
 Thomas Seamer. 
 this 12th of March. 1609. John Morton." 
 
 LOUISVILLE, KY. 
 
 CHAS. T. DEARING, 
 1899. 
 
BX^' 
 .14 
 
 28600 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 
 
 TW0 COPIES RECEIVER 
 
 OF C0h£,- 
 
 #3811899^ / 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER. PAGE. 
 
 I. THE ANCIENT BRITISH CHRISTIANS , 9 
 
 II. ANABAPTISTS OF THE XVI. CENTURY 18 
 
 III. ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL BAPTISTS 29 
 
 IV. ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL BAPTISTS— Continued 41 
 V. ORIGIN OF THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS 55 
 
 VI. DISUSE OF IMMERSION IN ENGLAND 68 
 
 VII. RESTORATION OF IMMERSION IN ENGLAND .... 79 
 
 VIII. THE SO-CALLED KIFFIN MANUSCRIPT 91 
 
 IX. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SO-CALLED KIFFIN 
 
 MANUSCRIPT 104 
 
 X. WILLIAM KIFFIN. 116 
 
 XI. THE BAMPFIELD DOCUMENT 128 
 
 XII. CROSBY'S WITNESSES 140 
 
 XIII. CROSBY'S WITNESSES— Continued 152 
 
 XIV. EDWARD BARBER AND PRAISEGOD BAREBONE. 163 
 XV. SOME OTHER BAPTIST WITNESSES , 175 
 
 XVI. SOME OTHER BAPTIST WITNESSES— Continued . . 187 
 
 XVII. WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— DR. FEATLEY 202 
 
 XVIII. WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— Continued 213 
 
 XIX. WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— Concluded 226 
 
 XX. SIGNIFICANT FACTS 239 
 
 XXI. WERE THEY BAPTISTS? 250 
 
 APPENDIX 262 
 
 INDEX 276 
 
 iii 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This work treats chiefly of that period of English Baptist 
 History included between 1609 and 1641 A. D. This was the 
 formative era of the Anglo-Saxon Baptists. The Baptist writers 
 of the 17th century distinctly claim their movement as a "Begin- 
 ning/' or "Reformation." From 1609 to 1641 and for some 
 time afterward the Anabaptists of England were organically as 
 well as individually Separatists upon the principle of believers' 
 baptism; but it was not until 1641 that they fully reached Bap- 
 tist practice by the adoption of immersion. They were element- 
 ally based upon the old evangelical principles of Lollardism and 
 Dutch Anabaptism which had produced English Congregational- 
 ism. In the early part of the 17th century Calvinistic Anabap- 
 tism seems to have been individually "intermixed" with Con- 
 gregationalism ; and it was out of this pure evangelical element 
 that the work of Baptist Separation began, in 1633, to reform. 
 The General or Arminian Baptists of England separated in 1609 
 and began their reformation in Holland — returning to England 
 in 161 1. Kiffin, King, Allen, Lamb, Jesseyand others followed 
 by Crosby, speak of this movement as a "separation," "begin- 
 ning," a "reformation upon the same principles on which all 
 other protestants built their reformation ;" and these and all other 
 writers of the period who touch the subject, expressly or implied- 
 ly, affirm that the English Baptists separated and reformed upon 
 a higher plane of truth than even the Independents who while 
 they took high ground and advanced position, never reached the 
 ultimate logic of Scriptural reform. They never got out of 
 infant baptism or sprinkling — compulsory religion; and hence 
 the Baptists claimed that they never got out of Rome, nor 
 reached the goal of a pure church or religious liberty — even in 
 their Independency. 
 
 Hence the title of this work. The two first chapters are 
 merely introductory, treating of the Ancient British Christians 
 and such of the Foreign Anabaptists as from time to time pene- 
 trated the Kingdom, and who though migratory and unsettled, 
 laid the foundation of Congregationalism or Independency in 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 England, and who furnished the evangelical base and theory of 
 Baptist organism and reformation at a later date. Baptist history 
 in England, according to General and Particular designation, 
 begins within the period to which this work is confined; and such 
 a period for many reasons made prominent in the body of this 
 work, deserves special and elaborate treatment. 
 
 It is needless to say that this volume is the product of the great 
 contention which has grown out of the " Whitsitt Question;" 
 and though it is a treatment different in form from that of Dr. 
 Whitsitt's Question in Baptist History, yet it is primarily depend- 
 ent upon Dr. Whitsitt's work for its original suggestions and data. 
 This work adds nothing to, nor takes anything from, Dr. Whit- 
 sitt's thesis of "1641." It only sustains that thesis; and it is only 
 a question of time when all unbiased scholarship will accept the 
 fact that the Baptists of England restored immersion in 1641. 
 Others besides Dr. Whitsitt claim independently to have made 
 the same discovery about the same time. Such were Drs. New- 
 man and Dexter, learned and competent investigators ; and more 
 recently it has transpired that Prof. Rauschenbush, another 
 scholar, came to the same conclusion, about the same time, in 
 Germany. So of Prof, de Hoop Scheffer and others. Thomas 
 Crosby, 1738-40, in the first history of Baptists, without giving 
 the date, 1641, details all the facts of that date which show the 
 revival of immersion by the English Baptists ; and but for this 
 mistake of our first historian who had the so-called Kifrm Man- 
 uscript before him, we should Jiave escaped the present contro- 
 versy. The more recent recovery of this manuscript by Dr. 
 Geo. Gould of London, led Dr. Whitsitt to assert the discovery 
 of the obscured date and to prove his thesis by ample collateral 
 testimony that the Baptists of England recovered immersion in 
 1641. 
 
 The author of this volume has written considerably in defense 
 of Dr. Whitsitt's view — basing his view upon Crosby's history; 
 but he determined to make a more thorough investigation of the 
 subject — visiting the British Museum and Dr. Williams' Library 
 in London, the Bodleian Library in Oxford and the Libraries of 
 Edinburgh and other places for the purpose. He now lays the 
 result of his research before his readers; and while much of it 
 has been a verification of the material on hand, he presents 
 much new and additional testimony. More than fifty original 
 authorities, Baptist and Pedobaptist, are here cited as a part of 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 his collection and verification; and he has been elaborate, though 
 not exhaustive, in detail a^id quotation, in order to give, as far 
 as practicable, the full setting of his authorities and to show the 
 exact position and history of the Baptists upon this question and 
 upon related points within the reformatory period under discus- 
 sion. The 1641 thesis is not merely incidental to this discussion, 
 but the author's aim is to present that thesis as only related to a 
 larger history of the Baptists which involves that thesis and a 
 corresponding reformation which is inseparable from that thesis. 
 
 This work is not intended to be simply controversial but his- 
 torical in fact and in spirit; and the author assures his readers 
 that his investigation has been in an unpartisan search for the 
 truth as in the fear and under the guidance of God. He sol- 
 emnly determined to renounce the 1641 thesis, if the facts of 
 history were against it; but among the 17th century authorities, 
 Baptist or Pedobaptist, he could find nothing which did not con- 
 firm the thesis. After all it is only a question of history, and 
 should be treated as such with a historic spirit and method which 
 deal with facts and not fictions, with original sources and not 
 subsequent traditions, with established research and not learned 
 opinions which have found place in literature without data or 
 special investigation. One good original authority is f worth a 
 hundred current traditions or opinions in any given historical 
 question. Positions in history are not always true because some 
 scholarly man holds them ; and it is often too true, for this reason, 
 that certain positions in history are taken for granted. 
 
 Besides the learned and able work of Dr. Wm. H. Whitsitt 
 (A Question in Baptist History) the author is indebted to the 
 great work of Dr. A. H. Newman (Hist. Antipedobaptism), 
 which reaches down to the date at which this work begins, and 
 to Prof. Henry C. Vedder's Short History of the Baptists, a very 
 valuable production lately revised and enlarged. He also com- 
 mends as most able and opportune the Baptist History of Prof. 
 Rauschenbusch, only the 17th chapter of which he has seen, but 
 which squarely adopts the 1641 thesis from Crosby. These late 
 Baptist publications, bearing upon the subject under discussion, 
 are written with scholarly ability and unpartisan courage, and 
 should be read by every impartial Baptist. While the author feels 
 indebted to these later writers, he has made an investigation of 
 his own ; and he bases his conclusions upon the original sources 
 of the 17th century and upon the original history of the English 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 Baptists, based upon these same sources by Thomas Crosby, 
 Evans and others. 
 
 The thesis of this work is not of the author's choosing, but one 
 to which he has been driven by careful study contrary to his for- 
 mer predilections and training. He knows how to sympathize, 
 therefore, with his brethren of a contrary opinion; and but for 
 such opinion the question would be of little moment apart from 
 the facts of Baptist history. For this reason however the author 
 feels that he has made a valuable contribution to his brethren, 
 (i) because he has contributed to a better understanding of 
 Baptist history and position, (2) because he has reset the ancient 
 Baptist landmark of constant reproduction instead of visible suc- 
 cession, which was unknown to the English Baptist churches. 
 To the peace and fraternity of the brethren these pages are there- 
 fore dedicated; and with a broader and more enlightened view 
 of Baptist history and polity^ it is here devoutly wished that the 
 Baptist denomination, founded by our Anglo-Saxon fathers in 
 tears and blood, may rise to wider fields of usefulness and prog- 
 ress and grander achievements,' as it stands upon the Word of 
 God for its sole authority, depends upon Christ for its sole head, 
 and follows the Holy Ghost for its sole guide. 
 
 An extra chapter and also an Appendix has been added, dur- 
 ing the printing of this work, in order to meet the published 
 objections and criticisms which, up to date, have been offered to 
 the 1 641 thesis of the Jessey Records and Kiffm MS. The 
 Author begs a careful reading of Chapter IX. and the Appendix 
 in answer to these objections ; and he regrets that having to go to 
 press he has not further time to notice further criticism in this 
 work. 
 
 GEO. A. L. 
 Nashville, Tenn., 
 March 13, 1899. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ANCIENT BRITISH CHRISTIANS. 
 
 There are several traditions which make it probable that Chris- 
 tianity was planted in Great Britain early in the first century by 
 propagandists from Asia and not from Rome; and with the ex- 
 ception of 558 years, from the time of Austin, 600 A. D., to the 
 time of Henry II., 1158 A. D., there seems to be scarcely a 
 period in English Annals in which we cannot find some trace of 
 Baptist principles. Down to the time of Austin's invasion and 
 massacre of the Welsh Christians, 603 A. D., it is maintained by 
 some Baptist historians that those ancient British Christians were 
 Baptists. The first English Baptist Historians, Crosby andlvimey, 
 incline to this view; but Evans, one of the latest and best writers 
 on early English Baptist History, after a thorough investigation 
 of the subject concludes that the assumption is based only on 
 " probability." That they practiced trine immersion is clear; 
 but the important question is : Did they practice infant baptism? 
 The data upon which hangs the question consists in the nature of 
 Austin's demands of the British bishops in 600 A. D., which, 
 according to Bede, were these : 
 
 "To keep Easter at the due fane ; to administer baptism, by which we 
 are again born to God [that ye give Christendom to children (Fabian)], accord- 
 ing to the custom of the Holy Roman Apostolic Church; and jointly with 
 us preach the Word of God to the English nation, &c." 
 
 But for Fabian's addition to Bede's account, namely, that "ye 
 give Christendom to children," the question of infant baptism 
 would not be involved. With this addition, including the form 
 of Austin's demand, arises the doubt with reference to the prac- 
 .tice of ancient Britons. Wall, Baxter, Murdock, Calamy and 
 other Pedobaptist writers affirm that Austin demanded simply 
 uniformity with the Romish time of keeping Easter, with the 
 
io English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Romish theory of sacramental baptism, and with the Romish 
 manner of baptizing children in white garments, with milk, 
 ~tioney, etc. Against this view Ivimey, D'Anvers, Davye and 
 other Baptist writers contend that the demand pertained exclu- 
 sively to baptism, or the baptism of children, without reference to 
 uniformity with Romish custom. According to Cathcart, the 
 evidence on the question furnished by Bede (Eccles. Hist., 
 Lib. II., Cap. 2) leaves the matter without positive determina- 
 tion. The fact that, at the time of Austin's demand, infant bap- 
 tism had not then everywhere superceded adult baptism, as in 
 succeeding centuries, is, according to Evans, an argument against 
 the probability that the ancient British Christians practiced in- 
 fant baptism; and yet there is much plausibility in the view of 
 Wall, Baxter and others in spite of Evans' '-'probability." 
 
 The fact is that those British Christians up to and at the time 
 of Austin kept Easter according, perhaps, to the Eastern Church 
 time; and it is certain on this point that Austin was demanding 
 uniformity with the Paschal time of Rome. He was also de- 
 manding conformity to the sacramental theory of baptism which, 
 it would seem, these British Christians had not held; and if they 
 were practicing infant baptism, which is in question, then he was 
 demanding uniformity with the Romish custom of white gar- 
 ments, milk and honey, etc., as Wall and others maintain. The 
 passage from Pelagius, a British Christian of the fifth century, 
 quoted by Dr. Wall, in which he says: "That men do slander 
 him, as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did 
 promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the re- 
 demption of Christ, which he had never heard, no, not even any 
 impious heretic or sectary say," in spite of Ivimey (Vol. I., p. 52) 
 would seem to indicate the presence of infant baptism among the 
 British Christians in the fifth century. Pelagius' statement is 
 almost conclusive of the fact. Although the system of Pelagius 
 denied the imputation of Adam's sin to infants, it never rejected 
 infant baptism ; and while it held that infant baptism did not 
 bestow eternal life, it maintained that infants, in some sense, 
 were excluded from the kingdom of heaven (though not from 
 eternal life) without baptism. (Mosheim, Vol. I., p. 371, N. 47.) 
 The passage cited from Pelagius fits the theory of Pelagianism 
 precisely and it is possible that his view of infant baptism among 
 the British churches explains the demand of Austin for con- 
 formity to the Romish idea of infant baptism. 
 
The Ancient British Christians. i i 
 
 Whatever the nature of Austin's demands, however, the British 
 Christians rejected them, because they were independent of 
 Rome's jurisdiction and had never had any connection with it. 
 Nevertheless these British Christians seem to have maintained,, 
 after the manner of early Episcopacy, some sort of Romish polity. 
 In rejecting the demands of Austin, according to Sir H. Spelman 
 (Cathcart's Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 257), the 
 Abbot of Bangor, Wales, in the name of the British bishops and 
 churches declared "that they were under ^jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk, who was, under God, their spir- 
 itual overseer and director;" and thus they formally declined the 
 jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. They observed Lent, Easter, 
 and other Romish ceremonies according to their own time and 
 way; their great schools were called "monasteries" and their 
 teachers "monks"; they had abbeys and abbots; and though in- 
 dependent of Rome, they were somewhat after the fashion of 
 Rome. British bishops were at the Catholic council of Nice in 
 325 A. D., and at the council of Aries and other convocations 
 of Catholic bishops before the time of Austin in England. Like 
 the Novatians and Donatists, who revolted from Rome and stilt 
 retained her polity and infant baptism (250-389), these British 
 Christians, though independent of Rome, were, at that time, 
 very much like Rome. 
 
 In some of the essentials of faith and practice these ancient 
 British churches — and so of the ancient Scotch and Irish 
 churches — were Baptistic. St. Patrick, Cathcart thinks, was 
 "substantially" a Baptist; but he was ordained a bishop in Gaul 
 after the Gallican Catholic order of that day; and so he ordained 
 hundreds of bishops in the Irish churches over which he seemed 
 to preside as bishop of the whole. He, too, was evidently inde- 
 pendent of Rome, as were the British churches, whether he ever 
 practiced infant baptism or not; and it is possible that the British 
 churches did not practice infant baptism at first, nor until it be- 
 came prevalent. Crosby seems to think that for the first 300 
 years adult immersion alone prevailed among them; and if so 
 they were at least Baptistic in the practice of baptism for that 
 period, whatever their polity or practice in other respects. Like 
 the Novatians, Donatists and Gallican Christians of the time, they 
 were very likely at an early day modeled after the Episcopal 
 order, though entirely independent of Rome. 
 
 The Christians of the Eastern type, who evidently evangelized 
 
i2 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Britain, landing first, it is said, at Glastonbury, near Bristol, were 
 probably of the same general stamp as Irenaeus, who labored in 
 Southern France during the latter half of the second century. 
 So far as known the ancient British Christians, as appeared in 
 England, Ireland, Scotland, the Rhine Valley, Thuringia and 
 other places, were never charged with Antipedobaptism, and this 
 fact is almost decisive that they never opposed infant baptism and 
 must have practiced it so soon as it became prevalent. Whether 
 St. Patrick ever practiced it or not, though an immersionist, he 
 was not a Baptist. He seems to have believed in baptismal re- 
 generation ; and his method of evangelization appears to have 
 been to interest a chieftain or a king in Christianity and without 
 waiting for much catechizing, to baptize him and his entire fol- 
 lowing. He baptized 12,000 in one night; and it is impossible 
 to suppose that they were evangelically converted. In fact they 
 seem as ferocious after as before baptism; and such men as 
 Patrick, Columba and the like did not hesitate to call on these 
 barbarian kings to fight their battles. In this as in most other 
 respects they resembled the church of Rome both in polity and 
 policy. 
 
 According to Cathcart (Ancient British and Irish Churches, 
 pp. 277-286) there remained in Cornwall, Wales and other re- 
 mote sections of England some of the ancient British Christians 
 or churches which never conformed to the polity of Rome until 
 the time of Henry I., 1109 A. D., when Wales was subjugated 
 by this prince; and it was not until 1282 A. D., when Llewellyn, 
 the Prince of Wales, was conquered and slain by Edward III., 
 and when Wales lost her last vestige of liberty, that Rome at last 
 completely triumphed over Welsh Protestantism and utterly ex- 
 tinguished what was left of it after the massacre by Austin, 
 603 A. D. Down to 1109, and onward to 1282, there were hid- 
 den, here and there in remote parts of the kingdom, fragments 
 of the old independent British Protestantism which continued to 
 refuse conformity to Rome, as in 600 A. D.; and possibly seeds 
 of this anti-Roman Christianity remained in Wales down to the 
 sixteenth century. Hence the fertility of that soil for early 
 Puritan dissent and for Baptist principles and growth after the 
 Reformation. It is claimed, with some degree of plausibility, 
 that traces of the Baptist element are discernable very early, if 
 not all the way through the history of Welsh Christianity, but 
 without any reliable historical data. According to Joshua Thomas 
 
The Ancient British Christians. 13 
 
 the first Baptist church ever known in Wales was formed at Ilston 
 in 1649 A. D.; and there is no basis for the tradition of a Baptist 
 church at Olchon, 1633. (Armitage, p. 599.) It is said that the 
 Welsh Bards afford the best historic annals down to the four- 
 teenth century, and they trace no line of Baptist ' 'heretics" to 
 that period. In fact down to the sixteenth century Wales was 
 completely under the shadow of Romanism; and it is said that 
 there was no Bible in the Welsh tongue until thirty years after 
 Elizabeth established Protestantism in Wales by law. It is 
 claimed that in Chester county a Baptist church dates its origin 
 back to 1422. If so this church was historically unknown for 
 357 years down to 1649 when the first known Welsh Baptist 
 church was established at Ilston; and it seems utterly impossible 
 in that small country for such a church to have escaped the per- 
 secution and destruction of Rome or the notice of history. Such 
 traditions are childish and misleading ; and nothing can be gained 
 by any people who advocate them in the face of authentic his- 
 tory. It is enough to claim traditional traces of Baptist footprints: 
 or principles in Wales through all these centuries of darkness and 
 despotism ; but it is absurd to claim organization or succession 
 which cannot be established by history. 
 
 The first instance, in the history of England, of anything like 
 an Anabaptist movement occurred in n 58, during the reign of 
 Henry II. and 558 years after the invasion of Austin and the 
 establishment of Romanism in Britain. An account of it is given 
 by Dr. Henry (Hist. Great Britain, vol. viii., p. 338) and also 
 by Rapin, Collier, Lyttleton, Denne, and others — also Evans 
 (vol. i., p. 10). Thirty Hollanders at this time appeared in Eng- 
 land, were arrested and tried before a council of the Clergy in 
 Oxford and driven to extinction by persecution for opposing the 
 dogmas of Rome. They were charged with rejecting baptism 
 and the Eucharist, without any reference to infant baptism, al- 
 though otherwise found to be orthodox as to the essentials of 
 Christianity, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, incarnation, and 
 the like. These people, though called Waldenses by Rome, 
 were evidently Paulicians or Cathari who, like the Quakers, did 
 not regard baptism and the Lord's Supper of perpetual obliga- 
 tion, and of course were intensely averse to infant baptism. 
 This movement was called the ' 'first revolt" in England from 
 Rome, and it has been claimed as an Antipedobaptist movement, 
 although these Hollanders were Anabaptists who neither bap- 
 
14 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 tized nor kept the Lord's Supper because of Rome's perversion 
 of the ordinances. Nevertheless it was a step in the direction of 
 Baptist Principles ; and it is historically the first evidence of the 
 Baptist element in England since the first three centuries if then. 
 Even this was foreign and not native born; but, as we shall see, 
 Baptist elements in England were long imported before Baptist 
 principles or churches were ever restablished. 
 
 According to Roger Hoveden, Henry II., 1182 A. D., was, 
 on account of State reasons, "very favorable to the Waldensian 
 Sect in England"; and we thus become aware of the fact of their 
 existence here at this period, just twenty-four years after the ex- 
 termination of the Hollanders by the same king, already men- 
 tioned. Hoveden also shows that in the time of Richard I. and 
 of King John there was no opposition to the Waldenses because 
 of the wars which engrossed these kings. It has been claimed 
 that these Waldenses were Dutch and French weavers who fled 
 from persecution and were protected by the kings of this period 
 on account of their industries; and hence it is held that Baptist 
 principles were thus early and permanently planted in England. 
 Upon the authority of Archbishop Usher it is stated that in the 
 time of Henry III., 1235 A. D., the orders of the Friers Minor- 
 ites came from France into England to suppress the Waldensian 
 heresy. Crosby and Ivimey declare that in the time of Edward 
 II. , 13 1 5 A. D., Walter Lollard, a man of great renown among 
 the Waldenses, came into England and spread their doctrines 
 "very much in these parts"; and that afterwards these Walden- 
 ses went by the name of Lollards, subsequently becoming con- 
 founded with the Wyckliffeites. It is to be noted here that Evans 
 makes no mention of this history so far as it relates to the Wal- 
 denses; and there seems to be no historical details which give 
 any clear idea of the character or extent of Waldensian aggress- 
 ion or influence upon England at the periods mentioned, except 
 that it possibly laid the foundation for Lollardism in the king- 
 dom. The Waldenses were at that time Anabaptists; and through 
 them we discover at this later period another trace of Baptist 
 principles in England before the evangelical movement of the 
 Lollards and Wyckliffeites in the 14th Century. 
 
 Taking the opinion of Baptist historians, Ivimey seems to 
 think that Wyckliffe and his followers were Antipedobaptists. 
 Crosby is not satisfied that Wyckliffe clearly opposed infant bap- 
 tism, but that some of his followers did. Evans is satisfied that 
 
The Ancient British Christians. 15 
 
 there is no document which authorizes the conclusion that the 
 great reformer himself rejected infant baptism; but he thinks the 
 Lollards and the Wyckliffeites were opposed to infant baptism. 
 In a sermon on baptism WycklifTe said that it was immaterial 
 whether infants were ' 'dipped once, or thrice, or water be poured 
 upon their heads"; and in addition to his sanction here of the 
 infant rite he thus, according to Dr. Whitsitt, made the first con- 
 cession in England to pouring or sprinkling for baptism. It is 
 evident that while Wyckliffe was a Baptist in the essential ele- 
 ments of Christianity and rejected the sacramental efficacy of 
 baptism, he never renounced infant baptism as a legitimate rite; 
 and what was true of Wyckliffe was no doubt true of his follow- 
 ers. Their opposition to the saving efficacy of infant baptism 
 was construed into their opposition to the rite itself; and hence 
 the charges of their enemies to this effect, from which however 
 they were defended by others. Wyckliffe never left the Romish 
 church, and he was strongly defended by many of its leading men 
 and ministry against papal bulls and efforts to condemn and de- 
 stroy him. Dr. Newman (History of Antipedobaptism, p. 342) 
 has well said: 
 
 "Diligent research has failed to discover any case of Anti-pedobaptism 
 among English evangelicals before the incoming of Anti-pedobaptists from 
 the Continent (1530 onward)." 
 
 Nothing is said of the mode of baptism among the Lollards or 
 Wyckliffeites ; but if in this particular they followed the great re- 
 former, the mode of the ordinance must have been a matter of 
 indifference long before the advent of the 16th Century. 
 
 The English nation became widely affected with the evangel- 
 ical principles of the Lollards or Wyckliffeites by the end of the 
 14th Century. The same was true in Scotland and Wales; and 
 the movement projected itself into Bohemia and other Continental 
 countries. By the year 1400 A. D., during the reign of Henry 
 IV., both Church and State combined to crush out this growing 
 and widespread "heresy" as Rome saw it. Sawtry, the first 
 martyr burned in England, was committed to the stake; and 
 Lord Cobham and others met a like fate in their devotion to the 
 principles of Wyckliffe. By 1420 the Lollards were driven from 
 the open field ; and although still numerous and powerful in secret 
 for many years, they were hunted and persecuted unto death in 
 large numbers until they were practically crushed though not 
 
1 6 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 extinct by the 16th Century. A mighty and vigorous evangel- 
 ical party, they were the forerunners of the Reformation in Eng- 
 land of which Wyckliffe was the "morning star"; and as Dr. 
 Newman says : ' 'The deeply rooted principles of Lollardism lay 
 at the base of the Puritanism and Independency of the later 
 times." What become of Waldensianism in this movement does 
 not appear; but no doubt in England as in Bohemia it merged 
 with Lollardism or Wyckliffeism ; and although anti-pedobap- 
 tistic at first it shaded off in this union into indifference upon this 
 point, as indicated by its later history. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the old evangelical life of the British 
 Christians faintly projected into the middle ages of English 
 Christianity, was finally crushed out; and, about the same time, 
 the old evangelical life of the Continent made its way into Eng- 
 land through the Waldenses, developed into Lollardism, then 
 into Wyckliffeism in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and then rolled 
 back upon the Continent with fresh vigor and renewed enthusi- 
 asm. Lollardism under the teaching and inspiration of Wyck- 
 liffe affected most profoundly the English mind with the funda- 
 mental doctrines of Christianity; and, as Dr. Newman said, 
 "was the forerunner of all that was best in English Puritanism, 
 from which, in an important sense, modern Baptists have derived 
 their origin. "But," says he, "we have searched in vain for 
 any satisfactory proof that it imbodied distinctively Baptist prin- 
 ciples or practices." Again he says: 
 
 "Nothing in Wyckliffes published writings — and Lechler claims to have 
 read through his extant manuscript works without finding anything — that 
 would warrant the inference that he rejected infant baptism. The nearest 
 approach to the Baptist position is his expression of opinion that unbap- 
 tized infants may be saved. But he did not even venture so far as to 
 express a decided conviction that they would be. His rigid predestina- 
 rianism inclined him to the opinion that elect infants would be saved 
 whether baptized or not; but he was not quite sure whether elect infants 
 ever fail to receive baptism. The Lollards took a far more decided stand 
 than Wyckliffe in favor of the salvation of unbaptized infants ; but no one 
 of them so far as we are aware denied the propriety or utility of infant 
 baptism." (Hist. Anti-pedobaptism, pp. 55, 56,) 
 
 What was true of Wyckliffe and the Lollards was true of Tyn- 
 dale and his followers. Tyndale was radically evangelical; he 
 
The Ancient British Christians. 17 
 
 had much in common with Lollardism and Antipedobaptistism; 
 but however he discarded its sacramental efficacy, he never gave 
 up infant baptism. Like Wyckliffe he seems early to have con- 
 ceded affusion as indifferent with immersion in the practice of 
 infant baptism; but like Wyckliffe he never surrendered the 
 propriety or utility of the rite, nor became an Anti-pedobaptist 
 as some claim for him. Nothing beyond the old evangelical life 
 and principles of Waldensianism (13 15) projected itself into 
 Lollardism, or AVyckliffeism, or Tyndaleism, or into the Eng- 
 lish mind of the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries. Antipedobap- 
 tism was a foreign element in England in the 16th Century; and 
 it never took hold upon the evangelical life of the English people 
 until Puritan Congregationalism had reached its ultimate logic in 
 Anabaptist position which was predicted by those who charged 
 such men as Tyndale, Browne, Barrowe and Penry with Ana- 
 baptistery. Robert Baillie and others declared that Anabaptism 
 was the true foundation of Independency; and it is pretty clear 
 that Browne and Harrison caught their ideals from the Dutch 
 Anabaptists of Norwich and other places in England. Anti- 
 pedobaptism first created the ideal of Independency among the 
 English; and then it engrafted upon this English tree the rich 
 foliage of believers' baptism, then immersion and finally all the 
 "principles and practices of Christ's spiritual and liberty-loving 
 religion. The conservative Englishman was slow to become a 
 Baptist; but when the process of development was finished, he 
 bestowed upon the name, Baptist, a prestige and a power in Eng- 
 lish history which have never been rivalled in the annals of mar- 
 tyrdom and progress, considering its small beginning and long 
 opposition at the hands of all the world. The English Baptist 
 reformation which really began in 1609 and was consummated in 
 1 64 1 had its foundation in Congregational Puritanism which was 
 the outgrowth of prior Anabaptist elements planted in English 
 soil and incorporated with the Lollard movement. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 ANABAPTISTS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 The real Anabaptist movement in England begins with the 
 reign of Henry VIII., 1534 A. D., at which time Crosby says: 
 "I find their principles about baptism more fairly stated." Dur- 
 ing the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth 
 and James I. onward, we trace the history of a people in Eng- 
 land stigmatized as "Anabaptists" and persecuted in every con- 
 ceivable form by imprisonment, banishment and death for holding 
 doctrines essentially Baptistic or intensely Anti-pedobaptistic. 
 There is no mistaking who they are in history. They are not 
 merely traditional. Their views though variant are well-defined 
 and formulated; and you can track them all the way through this 
 century by their blood. Henry VIII. burned scores of them; 
 two were burned by Edward VI. ; Queen Mary who burned 
 every class of non-conformists, burned ten Anabaptists in the 
 year 1555 and large numbers at different times and places; Queen 
 Elizabeth burned two; and James I. burned two and otherwise 
 cruelly persecuted them during his reign. Among the martyrs 
 were Joan Boucher, 1550, and Pieters and Terwoot, 1575, who 
 left behind them their declaration of faith under the sign and 
 seal, of their own blood. These people maintained believers' 
 baptism as opposed to infant baptism ; a converted church mem- 
 bership as opposed to the corrupt Establishments of Rome and 
 England; independency as opposed to hierarchy; soul-liberty 
 as opposed to magisterial interference and force in matters of 
 faith ; the word of God as opposed to the traditions and com- 
 mandments of men; a voluntary as opposed to a compulsory 
 religion — for all of which and more they pleaded, lived and died 
 with heroic devotion to Baptist principles. 
 
 They were sometimes Socinian, Pelagian, or at best Arminian 
 in doctrine. Most if not all of them maintained that the human- 
 
 18 
 
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century. 19 
 
 ity of Christ was not of the substance of Mary's body. They 
 had many vagaries about oaths, war, majesty, and the like; but 
 they stood by Baptist principles and peculiarities in the main with 
 a martyr zeal and devotion which edicts of banishment and fires 
 of persecution could not quench. 
 
 These Anabaptists of England during the 16th Century, with 
 but little exception, were foreigners, chiefly from Holland, who 
 fled from persecution and death in their own country to meet a 
 like fate in England — whether at the hands of Papist or Pro- 
 testant. According to Dr. Newman (Hist. Antipedobaptism, pp. 
 345, 346,) there was a large immigration of Dutch artisans to 
 England in 1528; in 1560, there were 10,000 in England; and in 
 1568-73, the number reached 50,000. In London, Norwich, 
 Dover, Romney, Sandwich, Canterbury, Colchester, Hastings 
 and Hythe, there was a large Dutch population, most of whom 
 were Calvinists; "but," says Dr. Newman, "a considerable por- 
 tion of them were certainly Anti-pedobaptists, at first of the 
 Hoffmanite and later of the Mennonite type." Thomas Fuller 
 makes 1538 A. D., the date at which the name "Anabaptist" 
 first appears in the chronicles of England; but in 1534 public 
 notice was taken of foreign Anabaptists in England by a royal 
 proclamation of Henry VIII. There was no such thing at this 
 time as an English Anabaptist; and every record of these people 
 during this century indicates that they were foreigners, chiefly 
 Dutch, who made little if any impression upon the English who 
 were the last of any people to adopt anti-pedobaptist sentiments. 
 Where they departed from Romanism or Episcopacy, they ad- 
 hered to other forms of dissent, such as Presbyterianism and 
 Congregationalism; and yet Puritan Independency which was a 
 Separatist movement against Presbyterial as well as the Papal 
 and Episcopal abomination, was probably first learned by Robert 
 Browne and Robert Harrison, 1578-80, from the Dutch Ana- 
 baptists of Norwich. Nevertheless these Separatists could not 
 brook Anabaptism in its opposition to infant baptism, nor in its 
 views of incarnation, oaths, majesty and the like; and hence the 
 slow and difficult growth of the English towards Baptist prin- 
 ciples and peculiarities. Though in 1575 the Anabaptists had 
 increased " wonderfully" in the land yet according to Thomas 
 Fuller (Ch. Hist. Cent, xvi., p. 104), "The English as yet were 
 free from the infection." In the same year John Fox (Letter to 
 Queen Elizabeth) pleading against the burning of two Anabap- 
 tists and for toleration of their so-called heresy, said : 
 
20 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 "We have great reason to thank God on this account, that I hear not 
 of an Englishman that is inclined to this madness." 
 
 During the reign of Elizabeth these Dutch Anabaptists con- 
 tinued to grow in numbers and influence, but towards the close 
 of her reign notices of their existence in the kingdom became 
 "few and insignificant." During the years 1560, 67, 68, 73, 75, 
 the Act of Uniformity was enforced with cruel severity against 
 them, especially in 1568 when large numbers of the Dutch fled 
 before the cruel persecutions of the Duke of Alva to England, 
 and when, according to Collier and Strype, many of the Dutch 
 Anabaptists were said to be holding private conventicles in Lon- 
 don and perverting a large number of citizens. In 1575, thirty 
 Dutch Anabaptists were seized in one of these London conven- 
 ticles held in a private house. Some recanted, most of them 
 were banished, the balance were committed to the dungeon in 
 chains and Pieters and Terwoot were burned. Towards the 
 close of Elizabeth's reign, "with the decline of persecution on 
 the Continent," says Prof. Vedder, "their numbers dwindled 
 until they disappeared." At least, a "large proportion" of the 
 Anabaptists as of the non-conforming Puritans and Separatists 
 were driven from England by these inquisitorial proceedings to 
 the Netherlands where at this time a larger measure of freedom 
 was enjoyed. The predominating party of dissent at the close 
 of Elizabeth's reign was the Puritan ; and in the earlier part of 
 the 17th Century down to 1633, as shown by Crosby, there were 
 Anabaptists "intermixed" with their Congregational brethren 
 from whom they separated in order "to form churches of those 
 of their own persuasion." Down to that date, 1633, the inter- 
 mixture was personal and not organic ; and with the exception of 
 the Helwys people, there were historically no Anabaptist organ- 
 izations in England before 1609-11 until 1633 when the "inter- 
 mixed" elements began to separate and organize for themselves. 
 
 Private Dutch conventicles, among the Anabaptists, held in 
 London are mentioned by Collier and Strype, at an earlier date; 
 and, in 1587, Dr. Some speaks of "several Anabaptistical con- 
 venticles in London and other places." Evans adds to this tes- 
 timony that they were not "exclusively" Dutchmen, and that, 
 according to Dr. Some, there were "some persons of these sen- 
 timents who had been bred in our universities." In 1589 Dr. 
 Some charged the Separatists with being "essentially Anabap- 
 
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century. 2* 
 
 tists," and so John Payne had warned Englishmen against the 
 "new English Anabaptists." It is possible now that people who 
 were regarded as Dutch-English Anabaptists were confounded 
 with the followers of Greenwood, Penry, and Barrowe who, like 
 Milton at a later date, though merely Separatists, were charged 
 with "Anabaptistry"; and hence it is difficult to tell, at this time, 
 who were meant by the stigma of "Anabaptistry." The Ana- 
 baptist seed had been planted however in the heart of some of 
 the English people by the close of Elizabeth's reign; and no 
 doubt there were now Dutch-English Anabaptist conventicles 
 which probably extended down to and into the 17th Century, 
 which by reason of a common persecution became "intermixed" 
 with the Puritans until 1633 when they began to separate. 
 Among these who entertained Anabaptist "sentiments" were 
 some who had been "bred at the universities" — as among the Pur- 
 itans with whom they became "intermixed" by sympathy and 
 similarity; and it was thus, at last, that the foundation was laid 
 upon which was subsequently erected the Baptist reformation of 
 the 17th Century. 
 
 Hanserd Knollys (Moderate Answer unto Dr. Bastwick's 
 Book, etc., pp. 24, 25, London, 1645) * s cited as authority for 
 the probable existence, before 1641, of some such Anabaptist 
 churches in London. It cannot be possible, however, that they 
 were the Dutch-English conventicles, which had succeeded from 
 the sixteenth century, of which Knollys speaks in 1645 — of whose 
 "saints" he had "experience," with whom he "walked," and 
 who were ministered to by pastors "driven out of other coun- 
 tries" — and to whose evangelicalness in preaching, gathering 
 converts and baptizing upon a profession of faith he testifies in 
 highly Baptistic terms, as the ministry and churches of God. 
 Knollys was an English clergyman until 1636, when he resigned 
 his ministry from Anabaptist convictions. In the same year he 
 was arrested by order of the High Commission Court, but es- 
 caped to Boston, Mass., which he reached in 1638. He became a 
 member of the Dover, N. H., Congregational Church, where, in 
 1640, his Anabaptist sentiments led to a controversy; and in 1641 
 he removed to Long Island and thence, in the same year, to New 
 Jersey. Afterward he returned to England, and in 1645 we find 
 him pastor of a Baptist church in London. The"churches of God" 
 and the ministry with whom he "walked" and had "experience" 
 in London, prior to 1645, must have existed somewhere between 
 
22 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 i 64 i and 1645, if tne y were publicly and privately preaching and 
 baptizing "with water" as he describes. He could not have had 
 such fraternal relations with them down to 1636, when he was an 
 English clergyman; and he could not have had such observation 
 of their practice from 1636 to 1641, when he was in America. 
 Hence, the period to which he alludes and which involved such 
 liberty, must have been after the abolition of the High Com- 
 mission Court, 1641 and onward. Granting, however, that such 
 churches and their "ministry driven out of foreign countries" 
 existed before 1641 in London, and that Knollys knew and 
 walked with them, they could have been no other than the Ana- 
 baptist churches of 1611-1633; and there is no proof in either 
 case of immersion among them by the statement of Knollys that 
 they baptized "with water" — the point sought to be proved by 
 the citation. (See Cathcart's Baptist Cyclopaedia, "Knollys"; 
 J. Newton Brown, "Hanserd Knollys," Bap. Quarterly, 1858.) 
 Great antiquity is claimed for some of the Baptist churches in 
 England, dating back, it is said, into and beyond the sixteenth 
 century. Prof. Vedder well says : 
 
 "The traditions of a remote origin cherished by a few Baptist churches 
 rest on no documentary or archeological proofs, and are probably of com- 
 paratively recent origin. Nothing is more common than a claim of vast 
 antiquity for institutions that are demonstrably only a few centuries old. 
 The sole thing that we are entitled to affirm with regard to the Baptists of 
 England is that traces of them appear in historical documents early in the 
 sixteenth century." (Short Hist. Baptists, pp. 108, 109.) 
 
 Hill Cliffe, Eythorne, Bocking, Canterbury, the old French 
 churches in London and Spittlefield, according to tradition, ante- 
 date the historic origin of the General and Particular Baptists in 
 England; but such a claim is not set up by the writers of the 
 seventeenth century, when the history of the English Baptists 
 begins. Some of those writers lived in the communities where 
 those churches are located and preached to their membership in 
 the latter half of the seventeenth century; and yet those very 
 writers claim the self-originated "beginning" of the English Bap- 
 tists as belonging to the period now under consideration. It 
 seems incredible that Baptist churches of such ancient origin and 
 long continuance, as is claimed for these traditionary bodies, 
 should have escaped the record of their persecutors or the notice 
 of the first Baptist writers who lived in their vicinity and preached 
 
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century. 
 
 2 3 
 
 to them if in existence; and such a claim, based upon subsequent 
 traditions, must be exceedingly unreliable. Doubtless in the 
 localities of these churches there were formerly Lollard or Ana- 
 baptist conventicles as in many other communities in England. 
 It is possible that Lollard or Anabaptist elements, as in London, 
 remained in these communities, "intermixed" with the Puritans, 
 and formed the basis of Baptist organizations in the seventeenth 
 century. It is possible that these Baptist traditions have their 
 foundation back in old Lollard or Anabaptist conventicles, or 
 people, once existent in these communities; but historically no 
 Baptist church in England can be traced beyond 1611-1633. 
 Even if you could trace the origin and continuance of such 
 churches back to the antiquity claimed for their beginning, there 
 is nothing in the facts of subsequent history to prove their con- 
 tinuance in the practice of immersion, which is also claimed for 
 them without any proof whatever. 
 
 This brings us to a consideration of the mode of baptism 
 among the Anabaptists of England in the sixteenth century. At 
 the beginning of their history, 1538, Thomas Fuller (Stow'sChron., 
 p. 576) speaks of them as ^Donatists new dipt ." According to 
 Dr. Newman these Dutch Anabaptists were of the Hoffmannite 
 first and later of the Mennonite type ; and it is almost certain that 
 both types practiced pouring or sprinkling. Hoffmann, the 
 father of the Dutch Anabaptists, so practiced at the earlier date ; 
 and of the Mennonites or Doopsgezinden it is affirmed by Prof. 
 Muller (Evans, Vol. I., p. 223) that their usual mode was sprin- 
 kling and at no time practiced immersion. So declares Prof. 
 ScherTer (Quest. Bap. Hist., p. 47). So also Dr. Newman with 
 reference to Menno himself (Hist. Antipedobaptism, p. 302, 
 Note). The Mennonite Classic is the Martyr's Mirror. In the 
 first part, written by Van Braght, 1660, he says (on Seventh cen- 
 tury) that the word baptism means not only immerse, but also 
 washing or sprinkling, which gives the Mennonite idea of Sis day. 
 So Schyn, 1729. In the light of all this testimony it can only be 
 supposed that Fuller was simply characterizing these Dutch Ana- 
 baptists, as Dr. Whitsitt says, under a "new name," that is, new 
 Christened, under the alliteration of "Donatists new dipt." His- 
 torically they were not immersionists. 
 
 Fox has been cited, 1563, as saying that there were some 
 Anabaptists at that time in England who came over from Ger- 
 many : 
 
24 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 "Of these there were two sects: The first only objected to the baptizing 
 of children, and to the manner of it, by sprinkling instead of dipping." 
 
 The statement is found in Fox's Book of Martyrs, Alderts 
 Edition, p. 338; also in Worthingtort s Edition, p. 338; but it has 
 never been traced to the original Fox's Book of Martyrs, other- 
 wise known as the Acts and Monuments of the Christian Church, 
 London, 1563. 
 
 John Penry,of Wales, 1586, is cited as an Anabaptist preacher (!) 
 and as possibly the first who preached believers' baptism openly 
 and publicly after the Reformation and as probably "the first 
 who administered the ordinance, by immersion upon a profes- 
 sion of faith, in and about Olchon." Penry was one of the well 
 known martyrs of "early Congregationalism"; and for a full ac- 
 count of him I refer the reader to Dexter's "Congregationalism 
 as Seen in its Literature," (pp. 246-252). Such a claim is a re- 
 proach to Baptist learning and history. Dr. Newman says : 
 
 "Undue stress is laid on the fact that Separatists like Penry were 
 charged by their opponents with Anabaptistery. All that they meant was 
 that the Separatist position, if logically carried out, would lead to Ana- 
 baptistery which proved to be true a few years later. Penry was in 
 thorough sympathy with Barrowe and Greenwood and was not a Baptist. 
 There seems to be no historical foundation for the statement that he was 
 an immersionist." (Review of the Question, p. 220.) 
 
 In the year 1551, William Turner ( Preservative or triacle 
 against the poyson of Pelagius, &c.) is cited as calling the Ana- 
 baptists in England, " Catabaptists" which is construed to mean 
 immersionists. Katabaptidzo means to dip, plunge, or drown; 
 passive, to be drowned (Liddell & Scott); and in the classical 
 sense the word is generally if not always employed in the bad 
 sense of overwhelming or drowning. In the ecclesiastical use of 
 the word, which is not found in the lexicons, Catabaptist means 
 one who is opposed to baptism, that is, to infant baptism, and a 
 preventive and destroyer of it, a depriver and depraver of it 
 by rebaptism. Zwingle in his Elenchus Contra Catabaptistas 
 (Opera III., p. 392) clearly shows that this was the meaning of 
 the word in the first part of the 16th Century. He calls the re- 
 baptism of the Anabaptists, the "baptism of heresy" {baptismus 
 haereseos), "deservedly called pseudo or Catabaptism" (pseudo sive 
 catabaptismus); and then he defines rebaptism as contrabaptism 
 
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century. 25 
 
 which is the equivalent for <r#M)aptism. as against the custom of 
 the church. Herman Schyn (Historia Mennonitarium, 1723) has 
 "been cited as applying Catabaptist to his brethren whom he calls 
 "true Catabaptists," instead of Anabaptists because of the op- 
 probrium attached to the latter word. In a later work (1729) he 
 prefers the designation "Mennonite Christians," instead of "Bap- 
 tists," "Baptismists," or "Catabaptists," because of the ambig- 
 uous meaning and use of the latter word in a bad sense by adver- 
 saries ; and because it properly {literally) means immerse, "a rite," 
 he says, "not in common use among most Mennonites, nor is es- 
 teemed necessary among all Mennonites" — excepting I suppose the 
 Rhynsburgers and others who began immersion, 1620 A. D. The 
 truth is that Schyn created a use of his own in applying the word 
 Catabaptist to his people ; and then afterwards objected to it for 
 two reasons: (1) on account of its ecclesiastical or opprobrious 
 sense, (2) on account of one of its literal or lexicographal senses 
 which had no application to his people as affusionists and which 
 was never applied to any people because of their mode of bap- 
 tism — not even to dippers. 
 
 In all my research, I find that uniformly the word Catabaptism 
 is used to express the "profanation" of infant baptism and never 
 used to define the mode of baptism. John Godwin (Catabap- 
 tism, or New Baptism, Waxing Old, etc., London, 1645) ey i" 
 dently uses the word as synonymous with Anabaptism without 
 reference to the mode. Frederick Spanhemius (England's Warn- 
 ing by Germanies Woes, etc., London, 1646,) on page 46, says: 
 
 " 'Tis evident also, that they [the Anabaptists] are called Catabaptists, 
 because they inveigh against Children's Baptisme, and will have it banished 
 out of the Church of God as being not only unprofitable but altogether 
 unlawful." 
 
 Dr. Featley (Dippers Dipt, London, 1647,) on P a g e 2 6, says: 
 
 "The name Anabaptist is derived from the preposition ava and /3a7rn£o, 
 and signifieth a rebaptizer; and at least such an one who alloweth of, and 
 maintaineth re-baptizing: they are called also Catabaptists from the prep- 
 osition Kara and (3airri^o), signifying an abuser or prophaner of baptisme. 
 For indeed every Anabaptist is also a Catabaptist : the reiteration of that 
 Sacrament of our entrance into the Church, and seale of our new birth in 
 Christ, is a violation and deprivation of that holy ordinance." 
 
26 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 On page 240 he says again : 
 
 "An Anabaptist deprives children of baptisme, and a Catabaptist de- 
 praves baptisme. A. Catabaptist may sometimes be no Anabaptist, such 
 as was Leo Copronymous , who denied the font at his baptisme, yet was not 
 christened again : but every Anabaptist is necessarily a Catabaptist, for the 
 reiteration of that Sacrament is an abuse and pollution thereof." 
 
 John Brinsley (The Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptisme 
 etc., London, 1645,) on P a g e 97? savs of the divers sects of Ana- 
 baptists : 
 
 •'Amongst others, some Catabaptists, others Anabaptists. The former 
 opposith the Baptisme of Infants, as a thing not meet and lawful etc." - 
 
 Thos. Bakewell (Confutation of Anabaptists, London, 1644), 
 speaking on page 75 of Anabaptists who are not pleased with 
 the baptism of infants, says : 
 
 "Such Katabaptists were in Calvin's time, that did furiously cal upon 
 them to be baptized againe." 
 
 For a complete refutation of the position that Catabaptism was 
 applied to the Anabaptists because they were immersionists, I 
 refer the reader to a critique of Dr. A. H. Newman upon the 
 citation from Geisler of Fuessli (III., 229) (Eccles. Hist., V., 
 pp. 355, 356) — also from Ottius' Annales Anabaptistici — of a 
 passage for the purpose. (Review of the Question, pp. 227-229.) 
 "The early anti-Pedobaptists," says Dr. Newman, "were with 
 zeal against infant baptism, declaring it to be the invention of the 
 Pope or the Devil." From this point of view they were stigma- 
 tized as Catabaptists. This is also the view of Dr. Whitsitt and 
 of all the authors I have found to speak on the subject. 
 
 In this connection William Turner (15 51) is cited again as 
 favoring the view, at this time, that the Anabaptists in England 
 practiced immersion from an expression in his book regarding 
 the dipping of "old folke," as well as "childes," which is attrib- , 
 uted to the Anabaptists whom he is represented as answering in 
 their language, but which is his own language. His book, which 
 was incited by the polemics of Robert Cooke, an Anabaptist 
 (who afterwards modified his opinion on Pelagianism), seems to 
 be in answer to the Anabaptist claim that one of his sermons, in 
 some particulars, coincided with the theory of believers' bap- 
 tism. He is referred to the ancient custom of baptizing Cate- 
 
Anabaptists of the Sixteenth Century. 27 
 
 chumen, and it is argued that "such a lyke custom was once our 
 most holy religion;" but Turner retorted that "such a custom 
 was not of Christ but of the Pope and the Catabaptists." (pp. 
 14, 15.) On pp. 96, 97, he argues against the Anabaptist posi- 
 tion that baptism, like the Lord's Supper, should be deferred until 
 the subject was old enough to believe and act for himself, upon 
 the ground that baptism was a passive ordinance in which no 
 one could baptize himself and not an active ordinance like the 
 Supper in which every one must participate for himself. Hence 
 he says: 
 
 "Childes may be as well dipped into the water in ye name of Christ: 
 (which is the outward baptism and as much as any one man give another), 
 even as olde folke : and when as they have the promise of salvation, as 
 well as olde folke & can receive the sign of the same as well : there is no 
 cause why the baptisme of Childes should be differed." 
 
 Turner was an English Church immersionist and he was using 
 his own language as to the subject of baptism, incidentally as to 
 mode and polemically against the theory of believers' baptism. 
 The mode was not in controversy, but the deferring of baptism 
 until, as in the Supper, the subject should be old enough to act 
 for himself; and Turner, from his own standpoint, as an English 
 Church immersionist, takes the position that children have the 
 same rights as old folks in the passive act of baptism as contra- 
 distinguished from the active participation in the Lord's Supper. 
 There is here no intention whatever to refer to dipping as the 
 mode of baptism among the Anabaptists, or to reply to them as 
 urging the delay of baptism, as immersion, until children were 
 old enough to believe and act for themselves, as in the Supper. 
 At that time, 155 1, the mode had begun to change from immer- 
 sion to sprinkling, but there were many then who still clung to 
 the ancient ordinance — among whom was William Turner, "Doc- 
 tor of Physick"; and he is here incidentally alluding to immer- 
 sion as practiced still among some of his own church without any 
 reference to the mode among the Dutch Anabaptists, which was 
 likely affusion after the Hoffmann type. 
 
 The above are about the only citations so far of any historical 
 importance which might imply immersion among the 16th Cent- 
 ury Anabaptists in England. They are so few and far between — 
 so indefinite in particulars — that it would be impossible to draw 
 any legitimate inference from them in favor of any such view. 
 
28 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The most that could be concluded from them, even if they were 
 valid, is the probability that some of the Anabaptists did and 
 some did not dip, although all of them held to the principle of 
 believers' as opposed to infant baptism and to all the other dogmas 
 and corruptions alike of Romanism and Protestantism. In the 
 course of this work we shall see allusions to the Anabaptists of 
 this period which indicate that they practiced sprinkling for bap- 
 tism, but I shall not produce them here. It is to be regretted 
 that so little is known of their mode of baptism; but with what 
 we do know, it is to be regretted also that any of our old Ana- 
 baptist brethren every practiced any other mode of baptism than 
 immersion. They were a heroic and glorious people and worthy 
 of our ancestry in their sacrificial devotion to Baptist principles; 
 and we can but devoutly wish that they had never varied in any 
 doctrine or practice of the Scriptures. The matter now, how- 
 ever, is of no greater importance than being faithful to the facts 
 of history; and it would be but sheer nonsense to maintain the 
 fiction that the Sixteenth century Baptists were immersionists, 
 any of them, if they were not. I should be far from denying 
 them this claim if I thought they were; and I shall hasten to re- 
 tract my error if my position is proved to be wrong. As will be 
 seen under the head of certain ' 'Witnesses,'' both Baptist and 
 Pedobaptist, such as Kaye and Watts, it is probable that the six- 
 teenth century Anabaptists sprinkled — that it is almost certain 
 that those of the first half of the seventeenth century so did, ac- 
 cording to a multitude of witnesses — and I refer the reader now 
 to a careful perusal of the subsequent pages of this volume, which 
 embraces the history of the English Baptists from 1609 to 1641 
 A. D., and which demonstrates the truth of a "reformation" as 
 well as a "beginning" in their organization, ministry and bap- 
 tism, as claimed by their writers in the Seventeenth century. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 tO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL BAPTISTS. 
 
 Thomas Crosby, the first Baptist historian, (Vol. I., pp. 265- 
 278), gives an account of the origin of the first Baptist church 
 in English history, organized 1609 A. D. It originated with 
 John Smyth and his followers at Amsterdam, Holland, whither 
 they fled in 1606 from persecution. They were a body of Eng- 
 lish Separatists gathered by Smyth, who had left the Established 
 Church, in 1602, on account of his inclination to Puritanism and 
 his opposition to the corruptions of the English Church. Smyth 
 and his congregation at Amsterdam were the second English 
 church of Separatists in that city, whither also Robinson and his 
 congregation followed in 1607, and where the older congregation 
 of Johnson and Ainsworth was already well established — all of 
 the same faith and order, and in full fellowship with each other. 
 Smyth and his people were still Pedobaptists and intensely preju- 
 diced against the Anabaptists up to the close of 1608; but in the 
 year 1609, having gradually developed along more Scriptural 
 lines against certain Congregational forms of ecclesiasticism and 
 worship, he reached at last the conviction that infant baptism 
 was not in accord with personal obedience to Christ, and that the 
 Separatists themselves had no other claim to the succession of a 
 true church than their infant baptism through the apostate 
 Church of England and thence through Rome. 
 
 He separated, for these reasons, from the Separatists as he had 
 previously separated from the corrupt English Establishment, 
 dissolved his own church and proceeded to reorganize anew 
 upon the Baptist model, which is based upon a regenerate 
 church membership and believers' baptism. He acted upon the 
 presumption that the true church and right baptism were lost ; 
 and that with the Scriptures he had the right, with others in 
 communion, to restore both. He recognized that there could be 
 
 29 
 
30 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 no succession of either through the apostate Church of England 
 or Rome, or through the Separatists who had received their bap- 
 tism in infancy from the Church of England ; the Mennonites, or 
 Anabaptists, were so grossly affected with errors that they had 
 neither the true church nor baptism. Hence the church and 
 baptism must be self-originated or anew by ' ' recovery ; " and so 
 he baptized himself and then Helwys and Morton with the rest in 
 communion, according to the united testimony of himself and 
 his contemporaries, as shown in his work, Character of the 
 Beast, and the writings of Clyfton, Robinson and others. His 
 thesis was that there must be first at least two persons in com- 
 munion through whom to begin baptism and organization anew ; 
 and that of the number one could baptize himself and then bap- 
 tize others in this communion in order to set up anew Christ's 
 church in order, offices and ordinances — all of which he claims 
 he and his followers did. 
 
 In his Character of the Beast, in reply to Clyfton, his position 
 is fully set forth. Smyth invariably assumes that the true 
 church and baptism had been lost under the defection of Anti- 
 christ, and that he and his people had restored them according 
 to the Scriptures. The Separation, having no other baptism than 
 that of Rome through England, was equally apostate with its 
 mother and grandmother. 
 
 "Therefor the Separation must either go back to England, or go for- 
 ward to true baptism." (P. 2.) 
 
 Clyfton, in his Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning 
 their Baptisme, &c. , (pp. 170-181), charges that the Anabaptists 
 in rejecting the baptism of the Separation rejected the baptism 
 of Christ, which had been preserved pure under the defection of 
 Antichrist — just as the golden vessels of the Lord's house in the 
 temple of Nebuchadnezzar under the captivity of Israel had been 
 preserved and restored without being "new cast;" that the 
 Anabaptists, in devising a new baptism, brought in a new 
 covenant and gospel; that they "baptized themselves without 
 warrant from the Word ; " that if in extraordinary case baptism 
 were lost and had to be restored, it would have to be done in an 
 extraordinary way, as by another John the Baptist, or under a 
 new commission ; they were apostate from the faith and custom 
 of their forefathers ; the succession of baptism has been perfect 
 and the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church. 
 This in substance. 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 31 
 
 Smyth's replies are clear and conclusive. He says: 
 
 " If the gates of Hel shall never prevail against the church then ther 
 hath always been a true Church, & Antichrist could never make the 
 Church false : and so you of the Separation have sinned most shame- 
 fully in calling the Church of Antichrist false." . . " If my argument 
 be not good against you of the Separation for erecting a new Church, no 
 more is yours good against us for erecting new baptism." . . "The 
 Covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real exist- 
 ence in the world in an established Church, but in respect of the stability 
 & firmness of it in regard of Sathan's malice which should not so abolish 
 it, that it should never be recovered again." . . "There was no true 
 Church in the depth of Antichristianism, & so no true baptism, for can 
 anything be true in a false Church, but the Scriptures and the truths con- 
 tayned therein. I deny therefor, that the Covenant, Church, or baptism 
 was visible always : For it was invisible when the Church went into the 
 wilderness : & therefor as you when ther was not a true church in the 
 world, took upon you to set up a new church, See: So the Anabaptists 
 (as you call them) doe not set up a new Covenant & Gospel, though they 
 set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptism which Antichrist had 
 overthrown : & whereas you say they [the Anabaptists] have no warrant to 
 baptize themselves, I say as much as you have to set up a true church, 
 yea fully as much : For if a true church may be erected which is the most 
 noble ordinance of the New Testament, then much more baptisme." . . 
 " When all Christ's visible ordinances are lost, eyther men must recover 
 them agayne, or let them alone : if they let them alone til extraordinary 
 men come and tongs [tongues], as the Apostles did, then men arefamilists 
 (for that is their opinion) or if they must recover them, men must begin 
 so to doe & then two men joyning together may make a church (as you 
 say) : Why may they not baptize seeing they cannot conjoyne into Christ 
 but by baptisme, Mat. 28:19, compared with Mat. 18: 10, Gala. 3:27." . . 
 " Now for baptizing a mans self ther is as good warrant, as for a mans 
 churching himself." (Character of the Beast, pp. 57-59.) 
 
 Smyth says again, (ibid, 62-64): 
 
 " The true Church is only by a Spirituall Line of Fayth, and true bap- 
 tisme by the Spirituall succession uppon the Spirituall Lyne of Faythfull 
 men confessing the Fayth and the sinnes, which was typed by the Carnal 
 Line of the Old Testament." . . " I deny that ever the English na- 
 tion, or any one of our predecessors were of the Fayth of Christ. Shew 
 
32 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 it if you can : but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came 
 & put upon us the false baptisme : and therefor although the Romans 
 might plead this, yet England could not plead it : and so your dissimili- 
 tude cannot hold in that thing: and our case is simply Paganish." . . 
 " I do utterly deny that ever our forefathers of the English nation be- 
 lieved, and you can never prove it. For that which you say seeing we are 
 Apostates, therefore it followeth that sometyme we or our ancestors had 
 the truth, I wonder at you for so saying : for we are departed from the 
 faith of the Scriptures, not from the faith of our ancestors, who never a 
 one of them at any time believed visibly in a true constituted church." 
 
 Smyth squarely assumes that there had never been a true 
 church having the true ministry and baptism in England. He 
 does not mean that there had never been any true believers in 
 England — nor that foreign Anabaptists had never at times been 
 in the Kingdom — but that the English people had never had the 
 truth of a visibly constituted Gospel Church. This utterly pre- 
 cludes the existence of Anabaptist churches in England at the 
 time of Smyth, else he had not erected a new church and bap- 
 tism; and as we have seen Smyth considered that there was 
 neither gospel baptism nor church in the world, not even with 
 the Mennonites, else he had adopted their baptism. 
 
 Helwys and Morton were in exact line with Smyth on the 
 doctrine that there had been no succession of the true church, 
 baptism or ministry and that they had to be recovered denovo. In 
 the same way that Clyfton assails Smyth does Robinson attack 
 Helwys. In his Works (Vol. III., p. 168) Robinson asks: 
 
 " If the church be gathered by baptism then will Mr. Helwisse's 
 church appear to all men to be built upon the sand, considering the bap- 
 tism it hath, which as I have heard from themselves, was on this manner : 
 Mr. Smyth, Mr. Helwisse, and the rest, having utterly dissolved and dis- 
 claimed their former church state and ministry, came together to erect a 
 new church by baptism ; unto which they also ascribed so great virtue, 
 as that they would not so much as pray together before they had it. And 
 after some straining of courtesy who should begin, and that of John Bap- 
 tist, Matt, iii., 14, misalleged, Mr. Smyth baptized first himself, and next 
 Mr. Helwisse, and so the rest ; making their particular confessions. Now 
 to let pass his not sanctifying a public action by prayer, i. Tim. iv., 4, 5. 
 his taking unto himself that honor which was not given him, either im- 
 mediately from Christ or by the church, Heb. v., 4 ; his baptizing himself, 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 33 
 
 which was more than Christ did, Matt, iii., 14 ; I demand into what 
 church he entered by baptism ? or entering by baptism into no church, 
 how his baptism could be true by their own doctrine ? Or Mr. Smyth's 
 baptism not being true, nor he, by it, entering into any church, how Mr. 
 Helwisse's baptism could be true, or into what church he entered by it?" 
 
 In all Helwys fight with Robinson and Brownism, in his Mys- 
 tery of Iniquity and other writings, he makes no denial of 
 Smyth's self-baptism, nor of his own baptism at Smyth's hands; 
 and in both his works, The New Fryelers and the Mystery of 
 Iniquity, as also in his advice to the Mennonites not to receive 
 Smyth and his faction after their defection, he reiterates the 
 doctrines and arguments of Smyth, before his last separation. 
 
 Ashton (Robinson's Works, Sect, xvii., p. 452) cites in a note 
 a tract of Robinson, entitled, " Manumission," of which no 
 copy has been found and to which Ereunetes, in the dialogue, 
 thus refers : 
 
 "That John Robinson, preacher to the English, at Leyden, hath printed 
 half a sheet of paper ; who laboreth to prove that none may baptize but 
 pastors or elders.' 
 
 "The question discussed," says Ashton, "in that tract was, Is it Scrip- 
 tural and right for any person who can preach and whom God blesses in 
 his labors to baptize others ? Mr. Smyth and his friends contend for the 
 affirmative, Mr. Robinson for the negative. The question had its origin 
 in the fact, that on the Rev. John Smyth and the Rev. Thos. Helwisse 
 becoming Antipedobaptists, they renounced their church connexions, 
 and hence a difficulty arose how they could be baptized. They agreed 
 together that Mr. Smyth should baptize himself, whether by immersion as 
 the English Baptists now practice, or by affusion, as the Mennonites or 
 Dutch Baptists did and do still practice, is not known ; and then Mr. 
 Smyth baptized Mr. Helwisse, and thus both became qualified to baptize 
 others. They justified their baptism by contending that any church or 
 teacher had a right to administer the ordinance ; that it was not so far a 
 church ordinance as to require its administration by pastors or elders ; and 
 that Christ had so ordered it in his last commission to the Apostles, Matt. 
 xxviii. 19. Mr. Robinson endeavors to prove that baptism is a church 
 ordinance ; and that no one should administer it but a pastor of a church; 
 except in the two following cases — by extraordinary calling, as John and 
 the Apostles by divine authority — or where a church has no pastor, by a 
 special calling from the church itself. Neither of the cases applied to 
 
34 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Mr. Smyth. He was not inspired and he belonged to no church. The 
 question excited great interest in Amsterdam both among the Mennonites 
 and the English Separatists. Mr. Underhill, the respected Secretary of 
 the Hanserd Knollys Society, informed the editor that, when in Holland, 
 he found among the archives of the Mennonite Church in Amsterdam a 
 final application from some of Mr. Smyth's party to be admitted to the 
 fellowship of the Church, but were refused til acknowledgment was made 
 of their error, in maintainiug that baptism might be administered by in- 
 dividuals, apart from connexion with a church, or that a church might 
 administer it among themselves, independently of pastors or elders." 
 
 Morton in his Description, 1620, pp. 154, 155, replies to 
 Robinson's argument, as follows : 
 
 ''In this thing we are partly called upon, and therefore shall manifest, 
 that any Disciple of Christ, that hath received power and commandment 
 from God to Preach and convert, though no Pastor, may also by the same 
 power and commandment baptize, which I will first prove by the Scrip- 
 tures, and then answer the objections particularly." 
 
 He uses the same arguments of Smyth and Helwys that the 
 true church and baptism had been lost in Rome, and that the 
 Separatists have no other claim for their foundation than their 
 baptism received from Rome through the English Church. 
 "But," says he, p. 161, "now I prove, the servant of Christ not 
 yet being in the office of Pastor or Elder, may baptize, thus : 
 
 "Whatsoever is written aforetime is written for our teaching: but it is 
 written aforetime that Disciples of Christ, though yet no Pastors, did Bap- 
 tize : therefore we are taught being disciples of Christ, although yet no 
 pastors, to Baptize when just occasion is given." 
 
 He instances John the Baptist, the Commission of the Apostles 
 as disciples making other disciples, and not as officials, who 
 should to the end of time teach and baptize — pointing to the 
 time when Antichrist forbade it and set up infant baptism, a bap- 
 tism of its own. On pp. 162, 163, he says: 
 
 "The Apostles have left their power and doctrine wholly behind them, 
 nothing is dead but their persons; and therefore the doctrine of Paul, 
 being now in the person of a believer : the Commandment is written for his 
 instruction, bidding him go Preach the Gospell to every creature & to all 
 nations (according as God enableth him, for he requirith not what we have 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 35 
 
 not) Baptizing them : this commandment is now as powerful as it ever 
 
 was. 
 
 I have quoted freely from Smyth — his friends and opponents — 
 in order to show clearly the origin of the first General Baptist 
 Church and the principle and practice upon which it was founded. 
 By a gradual process of development thro' perhaps eight or ten 
 years — separating first from the English Church and then from 
 the Brownists — Smyth evolved the ideal of a Baptist church in 
 the light of the Scriptures contrasted with the errors both of the 
 Pedobaptists and Mennonites. As an English churchman he saw 
 Rome the usurper of the "historic episcopate" in England; as a 
 Separatist he saw the English Church as a corrupt hierarchy; 
 and at last convinced of Baptist principles, he saw the Separation 
 as only the legitimate offspring — the daughter of the English 
 establishment and the granddaughter of the Romish apostate. 
 Infant baptism was the "mark" or "character of the beast" in 
 violation of Christ's fundamental law of church constitution; 
 and being a clear-headed, honest and zealous man, he imme- 
 diately reached the logic of believers' baptism and a regenerate 
 membership as the sole basis of New Testament church organi- 
 zation. The Anabaptists around him held to this view, but 
 Smyth seems to have worked out through gradual development 
 the ideal of the gospel church in the light of the Scriptures; and 
 however soon he discovered this principle among the Mennon- 
 ites, or whatever they contributed to his knowledge and deci- 
 sion on the subject, they, too, were apostate from deeper and 
 larger doctrinal standpoints. In England nor on the Continent 
 could he and his followers find baptismal, organic or doctrinal 
 succession, even among the Anabaptists, and much less through 
 apostate Rome and her Pedobaptist daughters whose universal 
 constitution was infant baptism — "the mark of the beast." He 
 knew the beginning as well as the doctrinal depravation of the 
 Mennonites — he knew the origin and history of infant baptism — 
 and he well concluded that there was then not a true Scriptural 
 church on earth and so declares himself in his Character of the 
 Beast. 
 
 Reaching this conclusion he was not long in acting. The logic 
 of the situation led him to dissolve his church and sever all con- 
 nexion with the Separatists. Regarding baptism as the cere- 
 monial constitution of the church, and that being lost, he struck 
 
36 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 upon the novel idea of baptizing himself and of then baptizing 
 the rest of his company in communion, after each had made his 
 confession of faith in Christ; and it was then through the act of 
 baptism that the church was constituted. No public act, not 
 even prayer, was allowed in the body, until baptism was per- 
 formed and the church thus constituted. The work was done — 
 the true baptism and church were recovered — and thus was or- 
 ganized and set up the first English church, after the Baptist 
 model, which has had any succession to modern times. Beyond 
 that English Baptist annals cannot historically go for baptismal 
 or organic connexion with the Anabaptist sects who proceeded 
 the English Anabaptists of the Seventeenth century. Dr. Joseph 
 Angus (Baptist Handbook, 1898) well observes: 
 
 "The earliest General Baptist Churches of which any history is known 
 were founded about 1611-14 by Thomas Helwisse, in London, Tiverton, 
 Coventry, &c; and the earliest Particular Baptist Church by John Spils- 
 bury, at Wapping, in 1633. There are traditions of earlier churches. The 
 Baptist Society at Shrewsbury is said to have been formed in 1627 ; that at 
 Blackenhall (now at Hatch), near Taunton, in 1630 (Thompson quoted by 
 Toulmin, Neal iii., p. 352). Even in 1457 there is said to have been a 
 congregation of this kind at Chesterton (Robinson's Claude, ii., p. 54). 
 The earliest books in defense of their views were written by John Smyth 
 in 1608-9. More than seventy years earlier, however, literature supplies 
 us with evidence of the existence and activity of Baptists in England. In 
 1548 John Vernon translated and published Bullinger's 'Holesome Anti- 
 dote against the Pestilent Sect of the Anabaptists.' Three years later 
 William Turner, Doctor of Physick, devysed a 'Triacle against the poyson — 
 lately stirred up again by the furious Secte of the Anabaptists,' London, 
 1551. These are the earliest English Antibaptist books I know." 
 
 Dr. Angus goes on to give the usual historical citations re- 
 garding the Anabaptists of England as far back as 1538, "for a 
 hundred years," he says, "before we hear of Baptist churches"; 
 but he fixes the dates 1611-14 as the earliest at which any 
 authentic history of Baptist churches, as such, begins. Really 
 the first English Baptist church, so called, began its existence, 
 in 1609, in Holland, and was transplanted to London in 161 1 — 
 as we shall see — but it had no connection with the Holland Ana- 
 baptists. Mosheim seemed to think that the English Baptists 
 had their origin from the German and Dutch Anabaptists; but 
 
Origin of the General Baptsits. 37 
 
 as Taylor, in his history of the General Baptists (Vol. II., p. 70), 
 and as the plainest facts show, affirms that Mosheim was clearly 
 mistaken. 
 
 The great principle upon which Smyth and his followers acted, 
 as the quotations from their writings show, was that true baptism 
 and the true church having been lost, true disciples moved of 
 God and having Christ, the Scriptures and the Spirit had the 
 right to recover them. This also implied that any disciple em- 
 powered to preach was empowered to baptize and so begin a 
 church anywhere and at any time circumstances required. 
 Hence their theory involved the setting up of a new ministry as 
 well as new baptism and church order; and upon this, as upon 
 the other points of their thesis, their position was hotly contested 
 by Robinson, Clyfton, Johnson, Ainsworth, Jessop and others. 
 The position was carried to extremes by some of Smyth's fol- 
 lowers; and hence in his last book, The Retraction of his Errors, 
 Smyth inveighed against the theory when it was carried beyond 
 the setting up of the church which could then establish its own 
 ministry and perpetuate the ordinances without the need of self- 
 origination. He still in his Retraction claimed that succession 
 had been lost and properly restored, but that here the setting up 
 anew of baptism, church or ministry ought to end; and he finally 
 sought membership among the Mennonites upon the ground that 
 they were orderly churches already existent at the time he or- 
 ganized the first English Baptist church. This was after further 
 acquaintance with them and after imbibing their errors; and 
 Helwys, still retaining Smyth's original position, antagonized his 
 old leader and brought on a severe controversy with him. 
 Smyth was correct as against the logical extreme of his position 
 regarding the right to restore the church, its ministry and ordi- 
 nances, after it was once accomplished; and he sought properly 
 to correct it by contending that the right should not be claimed 
 when once the church, its ministry and ordinances, had been 
 established. 
 
 The principle upon which the first English Baptist Church was 
 founded, were maintained not only by the immediate followers 
 of Smyth, but by all the Baptists, so far as I have read, in the 
 17th Century. They all claimed that they had a new "Beginning" 
 or ' 'reformation" in England — even down to Crosby who wrote 
 their history in 1738-40; and the right to self-origination, upon 
 the ground that the true baptism, church and ministry were lost 
 
38 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in the apostasy of Rome and her offspring, was a cardinal doc- 
 trine of all the writers of the 17 th Century whom I have exam- 
 ined. Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence, 
 Barber, Kiffin, King, Collins, Kilcop, Cornwell, Allen, Denne, 
 Oates, Patient, Lamb and others — all both General and Particu- 
 lar Baptists — repudiated the doctrine of organic or baptismal 
 succession, and defended the right to restore baptism, the church 
 and the ministry upon the principle of self-origination. From 
 the start they called believers' baptism "new baptism" recovered 
 from the depths of the Romish Apostasy ; and from 1640-41 and 
 onward they give their baptism the additional title of being ' 'new" 
 by reason of the restoration of the "ancient practice of immer- 
 sion." They are not only called 'mew rebaptizers" but "new 
 dippers" after the latter date. There was but one thing in John 
 Smyth which they rejected — his self-baptism; and in all else, 
 except (with the Particular Baptists) his Arminianism, he set the 
 pace for Baptist position in England; and though he went over 
 to the errors of the Mennonites his immediate successors Helwys 
 and Morton reasserted and continued the foundation upon which 
 he built. 
 
 As already intimated, soon after the establishment of Smyth's 
 church, the mother of the General Baptists, sometime in the year 
 1609, upon further acquaintance with the Mennonites and having 
 become tainted with their Pelagian, or Socinian views, Smyth 
 became convinced that he and his followers had erred in their 
 attempt to restore right baptism and true church order; and with 
 the majority of his congregation he sought admission into the 
 Mennonite Church in Amsterdam which he now regarded as the 
 true church having right baptism if not regular succession. This 
 was his third separation; and he was now excluded from the 
 Anabaptist organization which, with Helwys and others at the 
 head, besought the Mennonites to be cautious about receiving 
 Smyth and his faction. Helwys and his church, as already said, 
 rigidly adhered to the original principles upon which they were 
 constituted and denounced the "succession" theory upon which 
 Smyth, in their view now, seemed to proceed, as a "Jewish Ordi- 
 nance" and the "chief hold of Antichrist" ; and it was not until 
 after Smyth's death, in 161 2, that Smyth's faction, in the year 
 16 1 5, was finally admitted into the membership of the Mennonite 
 Church, no difference whatever being found between the Dutch 
 and the English either in the doctrine of salvation or in the de- 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 39 
 
 sign and mode of baptism. (Evans, Vol. I., p. 202). In the 
 providence of God, however, Smyth, like Roger Williams, build- 
 ed wiser than he afterwards thought; and unwisely, like Roger 
 Williams, he abandoned and vainly attempted to tear down God's 
 building. 
 
 Though still imperfect in doctrine and practice, the true idea 
 of Christ's Church — based upon a regenerate church member- 
 ship and believers' baptism — was now freshly and purely re- 
 stored ; and the grosser errors of Anabaptism, as it then existed, 
 were largely eliminated. The foundation in principle, if not in 
 practice, was thus laid for the future Baptist Denomination 
 among the English people. Although the evolution through 
 which we have passed to our present higher and more perfect 
 position has been slow and sometimes convulsive, yet, in the 
 providence of God, the eccentric and errant John Smyth was 
 the humble instrument through whom God operated the scheme 
 of restoration ; and strange or mysterious as this beginning may 
 appear, it is but another illustration of that all-wise Providence 
 which left Israel in captivity and slavery, and then raised up 
 Moses to lead his people through the wilderness to the promised 
 land which he truly saw, but never entered. Joshua led Israel 
 over Jordan; and so Helwys led the first English Anabaptist 
 church — the mother of the General Baptists — to London and 
 established it there, in 161 1, and thus completed the first great 
 step in the Baptist reformation. 
 
 The very fact, as we shall see in the next chapter, that Smyth 
 abandoned his newly erected church and sought admission 
 among the Mennonites, shows that he had come to agree with 
 them in every particular of doctrine and practice. He now 
 regarded them as embodying the true church ; and while he had 
 erected baptism and a church anew upon their model, he now 
 regarded it as an error that he and his followers had not at first 
 joined the Mennonites, and thus established the English organiza- 
 tion under the form of regularity, if not of succession, which he 
 still denied as existent, though charged to the contrary. Hence 
 it is clear that whatever form of baptism the Mennonites main- 
 tained, that was the form originally adopted by Smyth. He 
 now agreed with them, not only in the mode of baptism, but he 
 had adopted all their doctrinal views of salvation, however heret- 
 ical heretofore considered ; and Helwys not only adhered to the 
 original idea of Smyth's new baptism and church, but he still 
 
40 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 maintained that the Mennonites, or "NewFryelers," as he called 
 them, were heretics, and vigorously wrote against them — and so 
 against Smyth. Morton likewise agreed with Helwys in the 
 original plan and doctrine of the newly erected church; and 
 these two level-headed Anabaptists engineered this providential 
 movement to a successful consummation. Neither of them, how- 
 ever, antagonized Smyth's mode or method of baptism; and 
 neither did they antagonize the Mennonites as regards their mode 
 of baptism, which, like Smyth's, as we shall see, was affusion. 
 
 The sum of the chapter is this : 
 
 i, Smyth held that, at his time, the world was in the depths 
 of Antichristianism ; that the visible church, with its ministry and 
 ordinances, was lost; and that the spiritual or invisible church 
 was still in the wilderness, without order, office, or ordinance. 
 
 2. Neither in the Churches of Rome, England, nor among 
 the Separatists or Anabaptists could New Testament order, or- 
 thodoxy or purity be found. 
 
 3. By the dissolution of his Pedobaptist organization and by a 
 self-originated baptism he and his followers as true believers, re- 
 covered the visible church, its ministry and ordinances, according 
 to the commission of the Scriptures. 
 
 4. He afterwards became infected with the doctrinal heresies 
 of the Mennonites ; and while he did not recant his doctrine that 
 succession had been lost, he adopted the view that among the 
 Mennonites true baptism and church order already existed. 
 
 5. Helwys, Morton and the rest of their church retained and 
 made permanent Smyth's original position as to the truth of 
 Baptist position and history. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164I, A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL BAPTISTS— Continued. 
 
 In the year 161 1, Helwys and Morton, with the Amsterdam 
 Church, returned to England and settled in London. It was a 
 very small body, but through much persecution and adversity it 
 continued to exist and grow. In 16 15 Crosby mentions Helwys 
 and his people in London; and again, in 1622, he refers to the 
 spirit and management of these "Baptists" as well represented 
 by a published letter supposed to have been written by Helwys 
 himself. According to Evans (Vol. II., p. 26), John Morton 
 had succeeded by 1626 in organizing five other churches of this 
 persuasion in London, Lincoln, Sarum, Coventry and Tiverton 
 — all of them small bodies, aggregating about 150 members. 
 According to Barclay (Inner Life, p. 95), there were besides 
 these, which is doubtful, four other churches of the same order, 
 numbering 11 in 1626. Dr. Featley in his epistle to Downam 
 (Dippers Dipt) gives the General Baptists 47 churches in 1644. 
 Baillie (Anabaptisme, The True Fountaine of Independency, 
 &c, p. 49) gives them only 39, or 46 churches in all, including 
 the 7 Particular Baptist Churches, in 1644. Neal (History 
 Puritans, Vol. III., p. 543) states that in 1644 there were 47 
 Baptist churches in the country and 7 in London, in all 54. It 
 is probable that Baillie is right, and that Featley's 47 included 
 the 7 Particular Churches and also the one French Church in 
 London, which was also a Particular Baptist Church, making 8, 
 which, added to Baillie' s 39 General Churches, would make 
 Featley's 47. It is evident that Neal added the 7 Particular 
 Churches to Featley's 47, making 54, by mistake. 
 
 Helwys died in 1626, after a pastorate of fifteen years, when 
 John Morton stood at the head of this General Baptist move- 
 ment. In 1630 Morton also died; and with the exception of 
 the correspondence (1624-26) which Evans (Vol. II., pp. 21-51) 
 
 4i 
 
42 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 records between the English Anabaptists and the Dutch Mennon- 
 ites at Amsterdam, there is but little definite history of the Gen- 
 eral Baptist movement until after 1641, when both branches of 
 the Baptist body became prominent in the religious and political 
 annals of England. 
 
 From these early English Baptists emanated a few documents 
 which immortalize them in history and literature. Besides the 
 published works of Smyth and Helwys they left several confes- 
 sions of faith which are the first statements of the English Bap- 
 tists in doctrine and practice; and though imperfect in some par- 
 ticulars they are soundly Baptistic and worthy of our beginning 
 as a denomination in England. Bating its modified Arminian 
 view of salvation, the confession of 161 1 is a substantially good 
 document. I have a manuscript copy of Helwys' publication, 
 161 1, against the "New Fryelers," or Mennonites, in which, be- 
 sides orthodox views upon the humanity of Christ, the Sabbath 
 and Majesty — contrary to the former teachings of the Anabap- 
 tists — he ably disproves the claim of "succession" to any sect of 
 Christians and shows it to be Jewish and Antichristian. From 
 the year 16 14 and onward we discover published documents of 
 these English brethren who disclaimed the name of "Anabap- 
 tists," in defense of "religious liberty" and against the corrup- 
 tions and persecutions of the State Church which forever distin- 
 guish them and which gave the key note to all the subsequent 
 contests of the Baptists for independency and freedom. Such 
 are Busher's "Religion's Peace," 16 14; "Persecution for Relig- 
 ion Judged and Condemned," 1615; "An Humble Supplica- 
 tion" to King James, 1620, etc. These documents clearly define 
 the Baptist position upon almost any question which differentiates 
 them from other people; and they constitute a rich heritage in 
 the archives of Baptist literature. 
 
 These early English Baptists, however, did not altogether es- 
 cape the errors of their Anabaptist brethren; and some of them 
 laid the foundations of heresy which well nigh wrecked the Gen- 
 eral Baptists in the following century. An intimate relation, 
 from the start, existed between the English and Dutch brethren. 
 Besides false views of majesty, oaths, warfare and the like, the 
 English became tainted with Mennonite Socinianism which has 
 never been thoroughly eradicated from the General Baptist body. 
 Though Helwys and Morton objected to many features which 
 distinguished the Dutch from the English, yet from 1624 to 1626 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 43 
 
 these Mennonite peculiarities regarding the Deity of Christ, the 
 weekly observance of the Lord's Supper, the lawfulness of oaths, 
 warfare and majesty had become questions in the English body, 
 and both parties to the contention were appealing to the Dutch 
 brethren for recognition and unity. Such was the harmony be- 
 tween the two bodies that Elias Tookey with fifteen others who 
 had been excluded Or alienated from Morton's church in London 
 (1624) sought union with the Amsterdam Church; and in the 
 discussion of the differences between them, there appears to be 
 nothing which would bar them from fraternal fellowship. After 
 the death of John Morton, 1630, his wife returned to her father 
 in Amsterdam; and with several others who probably returned 
 _with her she was received into the Monnonite church on her for- 
 mer baptism by John Smyth. (Evans, Vol. L, p. 223.) 
 
 This intimate relationship not only led the English into some 
 Mennonite errors which permanently injured their original ortho- 
 doxy and narrowed their spirit and usefulness, but it indicated 
 their agreement on the mode of baptism which was affusion. 
 Prof. Scheffer affirms that this relationship continued until 1641, 
 when it was suddenly broken off on account of the adoption of 
 immersion by the English Baptists at that date; and this suggests 
 an inquiry into the mode of baptism practiced alike by both 
 parties. 
 
 1. It is the testimony of the best scholarship, of Smyth him- 
 self and of his contemporaries that he baptized himself and then 
 baptized Helwys, Morton and the rest of his company. The 
 quotation from his Character of the Beast, etc., pp. 58, 59, 1609, 
 is conclusive and reads as follows : 
 
 "Whereas, you say that they [we] have no warrant to baptize them- 
 selves [ourselves], I say, as much as you have to set up a true church, yea, 
 fully as much. For if a true church may be erected which is the most 
 noble ordinance of the New Testament, then much more baptism; and if 
 a true church cannot be erected without baptism . . . you cannot 
 deny . . . that baptism may also be recovered. If they must recover 
 them, men must begin to do so, and then two men joining may make a 
 church . . . Why may they not baptize, seeing they cannot conjoin 
 into Christ but by baptism ? . . . Now for baptizing a man's self there is as 
 good warrant as for a man churching himself . For two men singly are no 
 church, jointly they are a church, and they both of them put a church 
 upon themselves, so may two men put baptism upon themselves. For as 
 
44 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 both those persons unchurched yet have power to assume the church each 
 of them for himself with others in communion ; so each of them unbaptized 
 hath power to assume baptism for himself with others in communion. And as 
 Abraham and John Baptist, aud all proselytes after Abraham's example 
 (Exod. 12:48) did administer the sacrament upon themselves, so may 
 any man raised up after the apostasy of Antichrist, in the recovering of 
 the church by baptism, administer it upon himself in communion with others 
 . . . And as in the Old Testament, every man that was unclean washed 
 himself; every priest going to sacrifice washed himself in the laver at the 
 door of the tabernacle of the congregation ; which was a type of baptism, 
 the door of the church (Titus 3:5). Every master of a family administered 
 the Passover to himself and all of his family. The priest daily sacrificed 
 for himself and others. A man cannot baptize others into the church, him- 
 self being out of the church. Therefore it is lawful for a man to baptize 
 himself together with others hi communion, and this warrant is a plerophery for 
 the practice which is done by us." 
 
 As Dr. Newman (Hist. Antipedobaptism, p. 386) says: "Thus 
 the fact of se-baptism seems to be fully admitted by Smyth him- 
 self." So conclude Drs. Armitage, Vedder, Whitsitt, Burrage 
 and Evans, Baptists; and so Drs. Dexter, Muller, Scheffer, 
 Ash ton, Barclay, Robinson, Johnson, Ainsworth, Jessop, Wall 
 and others — some of whom were Smyth's contemporaries and 
 on the spot when and where the self-baptism was performed. 
 Crosby, who believed that Smyth restored immersion in Holland, 
 but who had not seen Smyth's writings, seems to doubt that the 
 above quotation, which he found in Wall's Baptism Anatomized 
 (p. in, 112) was sufficient proof of Smyth's self-baptism; but 
 Crosby, in order to his argument (Vol. I., pp. 98-99), mutilates 
 and garbles the quotation without any satisfactory conclusion to 
 himself. He drops the question and says : 
 
 "If he were guilty of what they charge him with, 't is no blemish on the 
 English Baptists ; who neither approved of any such method, nor did 
 they receive their baptism from him." (Vol. I., pp., 99-100.) 
 
 There is no doubt that Smyth baptized himself. 
 
 2. W T hat was the mode of his self-baptism which he trans- 
 mitted to his followers ? It seems clearly affusion ; and this fact, 
 in the absence of Smyth's writings, explains why Crosby, who 
 believed that Smyth was immersed, does not solve the mystery 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 45 
 
 that Smyth's followers did not introduce immersion into Eng- 
 land, 161 1 ; and hence he dropped summarily the matter of his 
 self-baptism by repudiating it as never having succeeded to the 
 English Baptists. Crosby did not then know the secret since 
 explained. 
 
 Robert Ashton (185 1) in his edition of the Works of John 
 Robinson (Vol. III., p. 461, Appendix) says: 
 
 "It is a rather singular fact that zealous as were Mr. Smyth and his 
 friends for believers' baptism, and earnest as were their opponents in be- 
 half of infant baptism, the question of the mode of baptism was never 
 mooted by either party. Immersion baptism does not appear to have been 
 practiced or pleaded for by either Smyth or Helwys, the alledged founders 
 of the General Baptist denomination in England. Nothing appears in 
 their controversial writings to warrant the supposition that they regarded 
 immersion as the proper and only mode of administering that ordinance. 
 Incidental allusions there are, in their own works and in the replies of 
 Robinson, that the baptism which Mr. Smyth performed on himself must 
 have been rather by affusion, or pouring. Nor is this supposition improb- 
 able, from the fact that the Dutch Baptists, by whom they were surround- 
 ed uniformly administered baptism by affusion." 
 
 Prof. Rauschenbusch positively affirms that Smyth practiced 
 affusion. 
 
 Dr. B. Evans, 1864, in his History of the Early English Bap- 
 tists, cites in proof Dr. Muller, who "fully agrees" with Ashton. 
 He shows from the records of the church at Amsterdam, that 
 Smyth, after being excluded from the English Church, with some 
 twenty-four of his faction sought membership in one of the 
 Mennonite churches of Amsterdam. It was probably a Waterland 
 church, whose mode of baptism was affusion or sprinkling. "The 
 said English were questioned about their doctrine of salvation 
 and the ground and the form (mode) of their baptism; and no^ 
 difference was found between them and us," said the Mennonite 
 ministers appointed to examine Smyth and his party. "This 
 statement is singular," says Evans, "as the members of this com- 
 munity were not immersionists;" and to satisfy these Mennonites, 
 with whom he sought union, Smyth and his friends acknowledged 
 and repented their error of self-baptis??i as contrary to the order 
 of Christ. (Evans, Vol. I., pp. 208, 209.) After Smyth's de- 
 cease, in 1 61 2, his faction was received into full fellowship in 
 
46 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 this Mennonite church — the unbaptized portion of it being ad- 
 mitted by "sprinkling" and not immersion, according to Muller. 
 (Evans, Vol. I., p. 223.) This is good inferential evidence that 
 Smyth and the already baptized portion of his party had never 
 been immersed — not only because a portion of them were sprin- 
 kled, but because it is impossible to conceive that, if Smyth was 
 an immersionist, seeking the true church and true baptism now 
 by "succession," he would have gone for the purpose to a 
 "sprinkling" church for membership. Especially is this prob- 
 able if, as Evans seems to think (for which he has no proof), 
 there were some of the Mennonites who at the time immersed. 
 Drs. Muller, Scheffer and others affirm that the Mennonites never 
 immersed. According to Muller (Evans, Vol. I., p. 223): "The 
 Waterlanders [to whom Smyth applied], nor any of the Netherland 
 Doopsgezinden practiced at any time baptism by immersion." 
 In this connection he says: "This mode of baptizing [sprinkling] 
 was from the days of Menno, the only usual mode among them, 
 and is still amongst us" — although pouring was sometimes prac- 
 ticed, especially at first. 
 
 But it is objected that there is a qualifying sentence in the 
 paragraph, from which Muller's language is quoted, which im- 
 plies that the English already baptized among the faction received 
 into the Waterlander church were immersed and that therefore 
 Smyth's baptism was immersion. The sentence reads thus : 
 
 "But they [the Waterlanders] cared only for the very nature of the 
 baptism, and were therefore willing to admit even those who were bap- 
 tized by a mode differing from theirs just as we are wont to do now-a- 
 <lays." 
 
 It is replied that the Waterlanders found no difference between 
 themselves and Smyth as to the "ground and the form (mode) of 
 baptism." The Waterlander mode was "sprinkling." There- 
 fore Smyth's mode was sprinkling. Hence the qualifying sen- 
 tence can only be an expression of liberality which indicates that 
 even if the already baptized portion of Smyth's faction had been 
 immersed they would have been received — just as the Mennonites 
 and Pedobaptists do at this day. Dr. Muller wants to leave the 
 impression that there would have been no narrowness with the 
 Mennonites about a difference in the mode of baptism, the 
 * 'ground" of baptism being the same ; but the context shows that 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 47 
 
 there was no difference either in the ground or nature — nor the 
 form or mode, between them. 
 
 After a thorough study of the matter, Evans (Vol. II., pp. 
 51, 52) says of the mode of baptism practiced by Smyth' and his 
 followers : 
 
 "We have to deal with it in the spirit of history, not controversy. 
 Only as an historic fact do we touch it. Again and again has it been 
 asserted that at this period immersion was not the mode adopted by these 
 heroic confessors. The question is only of moment in the light of history. 
 Beyond this its interest and value do not go. Truth is more important to 
 us than theory. In this spirit we shall enter into this inquiry." 
 
 He then quotes Altute, who assumes that till the beginning of 
 the seventeenth century the English Baptists only rejected the 
 baptism of infants, but did not insist on immersion until intro- 
 duced by John Smyth — a fiction already disproved by Evans and 
 his authorities and so confuted in his following thesis. He cites 
 again Ashton, the editor of Robinson's works and repeats the 
 expression : 
 
 "Nothing (referring to Smyth and Helwys) appears in their contro- 
 vercial writings to warrant the supposition that they regarded immersion 
 as the proper and only mode of administering that ordinance, &c," 
 
 and who concludes, as seen heretofore, that Smyth baptized 
 himself by "affusion," in whose "opinion," says Evans, "Dr. 
 Muller fully agrees." 
 
 "But," asks Dr. Evans, "was it so? We cannot pronounce positively, 
 but we are bound to confess that the probabilities are greatly in its favor. 
 The harmony of opinion, and the anxiety for agreement, which their 
 Dutch brethren manifested in the documents laid before our readers, 
 would more than warrant this conclusion. Add to this the fact already 
 stated by Ivimey, that, on the formation of the first Particular Baptist 
 Church in England, an individual was sent over to Holland to be immersed. 
 Now this could not arise from their being no Baptists in the country. We 
 have seen that the very opposite was the fact. Other churches, too, as 
 will be seen presently, existed in the country. Only from one or two 
 causes could this condition arise : dislike to Arminian doctrines, or dissat- 
 isfaction with the mode of baptism. Which of these operated, it is difficult 
 to say. Probably both had an influence in determining this course." 
 
48 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 In all this Dr. Evans clearly inclines to the opinion that Smyth, 
 Helwys and their followers were affusionists. 
 
 Dr. Evans, however, does not stop here. He points us to the 
 fact that, so late as 1646, at Chelmsford, there still existed among 
 the Anabaptists this Mennonite affusion as indicated by the pres- 
 ence of the Old Men, or Aspersi, as contradistinguished from the 
 New Men or Immersi (Vol. II., pp. 52, 53). After commenting 
 upon the introduction of the Particular Baptist Churches and the 
 deputation to Holland for immersion, he concludes : 
 
 "Most will now see that the practice of the Mennonite brethren \affusion\ 
 was common [among the Anabaptists] in this country [England]. These 
 New Men [Immersi] soon cast them [the Old Men or Aspersi\ into the 
 shade, and this practice speedily became obsolete. Immersion as the mode 
 of baptism became the rule with both sections of the Baptist community. 
 Indeed from this time [1646], beyond the fact already given [at Chelms- 
 ford] we know not of a solitary exception." (Vol. II., p. 79). 
 
 Thus in the spirit of history and not partisan interest Evans 
 concedes the strong probability — "the conclusion more than 
 warranted" — that Smyth and his followers practiced Mennonite 
 affusion down to the formation of the first Particular Baptist 
 Church and to the time of Blunt's deputation to Holland for 
 immersion; and he goes further in saying that, as late as 1646, 
 the Anabaptists were still divided between the practice of the 
 Old Men or Aspersi and the New Men or Immersi — showing that 
 immersion among the Anabaptists was a ' t new >1 thing in England 
 at that date. Dr. Evans was an able and accurate Baptist his- 
 torian; and he is cited in the interests of history, not controversy, 
 and in evidence of a reformation which was gradual and some- 
 what slow in development. 
 
 In the Confessions of Smyth and Helwys the articles on bap- 
 tism, separated from the facts of history, would not strongly indi- 
 cate that they did not regard immersion as the Scripture form of 
 Baptism. They never use the word immersion, however, in their 
 writings or confessions; and in the 14th article of the 161 1 Confes- 
 sion which defines baptism, this language is used : "Baptism, or 
 washing with water, is the outward manifestation of dying unto 
 sin and walking in newness of life ; therefore in no wise apper- 
 taineth to infants." Smyth in his Latin Confession (Art. 14) 
 says: "That baptism is the external sign of remission of sins, 
 of dying and being made alive, and therefore does not belong to 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 49 
 
 infants." In his confession presented to the sprinkling Mennon- 
 ites (Art. XXXVIII) he speaks of baptism as being "buried 
 with Christ into death, (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12);" and in his Eng- 
 lish Confession he represents baptism as the outward witness of 
 the inward baptism of the believer "in the laverof regeneration 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost, washing the soul from all pol- 
 lution and sin." Baptism as a u washing with water" according 
 to the 161 1 Confession, agrees with the general Pedobaptist form 
 of expression applied to sprinkling or pouring in that day and 
 since; but the symbolic allusions in all these articles to immer- 
 sion — such as dying to sin and walking in newness of life — would 
 seem to imply the Baptist idea of the ordinance, though the word 
 immersion is never used. The only explanation of such usage, 
 in conflict with the apparent facts of history, is that most of the 
 Anabaptists of that day — the Mennonites especially — while they 
 regarded immersion as a Scriptural mode of baptism, they regard- 
 ed affusion as an alternate method and practiced it as sufficient 
 baptism; and hence in defining the ordinance as a "washing 
 with water," they had no hesitation in attaching the burial and 
 resurrection symbolism of Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12 as the ideal bap- 
 tism without regard to mode. 
 
 In his Character of the Beast, pp. 3, 4, inveighing against 
 infant baptism, Smyth says : 
 
 "When the Apostle (i Pet. 3:21) saith that the baptism of the Spirit is 
 the question of a good conscience unto God, &c, Heb. 10:22, when the 
 baptism which is inward is called the sprinkling of the heart from an evil 
 conscience: seeing therefore infants neither have an evil conscience nor 
 the question of a good conscience, nor the purging of the heart, for all 
 these are proper to actual sinners : hence it followeth that infants baptism 
 is folly and nothing." 
 
 Here Smyth defines inward baptism by sprinkling; and hence the 
 outward baptism which he always calls a "washing with water" 
 was in his mind defined by affusion. On page 54, after showing 
 that the matter of baptism is a believing subject and the form a 
 washing with water into the name of the Trinity, he says : 
 
 "Water is not the matter of baptism, but only the instrument of bap- 
 tism : For as fire is the instrument of burning, so is Water of washing : the 
 matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt, so the matter of washing is 
 the party washed." 
 
 4 
 
5© English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 A Baptist believing in immersion would define water as the ele- 
 ment in which, but not the "instrument" by which, a man is 
 baptized: and "sprinkling" or "washing" for baptism is now 
 utterly out of the question in any sense with Baptist definition. 
 Helwys in his Mystery of Iniquity and Morton in his work en- 
 titled, A Description, both repeatedly keep up Smyth's use of 
 the word "washing" as the definition of baptism; and in all their 
 discussion with Robinson, Ainsworth, Johnson, Jessop and others 
 who practiced sprinkling, they invariably used the word "wash- 
 ing" for baptism as their opponents did. They spoke of the 
 folly of "washing infants" as a definition of infant baptism — 
 just as they defined adult baptism ; and it is clear that they meant 
 just what their opponents did by the mode of baptism which was 
 affusion. Such was the usage of the sprinkling Mennonites with 
 whom they were associated and who did not hesitate to use Rom. 
 6:4; Col. 2:12 as expressive of the ideal effect of baptism in wash- 
 ing away sin. Smyth, Helwys and Morton use Heb. 10:22 in 
 the sense of baptizo, both as to the baptism of the heart by the 
 sprinkling of blood and the washing (leloumenoi) of the body 
 with pure water. 
 
 As Dr. Newman says : 
 
 "The use of the Biblical language about burial and resurrection in con- 
 nection with baptism proves absolutely nothing as to the practice of a 
 writer." 
 
 The opponents of Smyth, Helwys and Morton, though asper- 
 sionists, employed the same symbolism. Edmond Jessop (A 
 Discovery of the Errors of the English Anabaptists, &c, p. 62, 
 1623), says of Col. 2:12: 
 
 " In which words (I say) he settled downe expressly, that the baptisme 
 which saveth, the baptisme whereby we put on Christ, the baptisme 
 whereby our hearts are purged and sanctified, and the sinnes of our flesh 
 done away, whereby we are buried with Christ and doe rise with him, 
 even that which is through the faith and operation of the Spirit, is one 
 and the same, with the circumcision of the heart." 
 
 Jessop is speaking of the sacramental effect of baptism as a 
 washing away of sin, the effect of which is to unite us with 
 Christ in his death and resurrection and which, with the Pedo- 
 baptists, is expressed just as well by affusion as immersion. He 
 meant no more by his definition than the Puritan Catechism, 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 51 
 
 " T^o Sions Virgins," 1644, when it asks the question: "How 
 are we buried by baptism with Christ?" and answers it as follows : 
 
 " When he was buried by baptism, sweating water and blood, he was 
 buried by baptisme, being under the wrath of the Father all his woes 
 were over him, then were the elect buried with him in his death, when 
 many came aforehand to bury him, in being manifested to believers when 
 they are baptized by the Spirit dying unto sin and rising unto newness of 
 life." 
 
 This Catechism is defending sprinkling as the mode of bap- 
 tism against immersion ; and it has no hesitation in adopting the 
 burial and resurrection significance of baptism as expressive of 
 spiritual washing which kills the soul to sin and unites it with 
 Christ in his death and resurrection. The Mennonites, Smyth, 
 Helwys, Morton, abound in the expressions, "believe and be 
 baptized," " put on Christ in baptism," " buried and risen with 
 him in baptism," and the like ; and yet they in no way differed 
 from the sprinkling Puritans in usage or practice, except in the 
 application of such symbolism to unbelieving infants. 
 
 Hence the word immersion was never put into an English 
 Baptist Confession, until 1644, for the reason, as we shall see, 
 that immersion was never adopted by the English Baptists until 
 1640-41. It was not put into the Confessions of Smyth and 
 Helwys, 161 1, because they practiced Mennonite affusion and 
 called it, as the Puritans did, a "washing with water." The 
 argument that they took immersion for granted because it was 
 the normal or universal mode is purely gratuitous, since in 
 1 609-1 1 sprinkling or pouring was the mode around them; if 
 they were immersionists in conflict with the other modes of bap- 
 tism, their failure to employ the word, immersion, would be 
 astounding. Certainly they could have incurred no danger 
 from persecution in using the word, immersion, in their Con- 
 fessions and writings, if that was the prevailing mode; and the 
 omission to use it is prima facie evidence that they did not prac- 
 tice it, aside from the fact of history that they were affusionists. 
 
 The so-called "Ancient Records" of the Epworth, Crowle and 
 West Butter wick church, 1558-9, published by Dr. John Clifford 
 in 1879, have been thoroughly exposed as a forgery by Dr. 
 Dexter in his work entitled : True Story of John Smyth, the Se- 
 Baptist; and it has now been repudiated by all true Baptist 
 scholarship. The fraud was evidently invented to escape the 
 
52 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 odium of Smyth's self-baptism which, after 'all, had it been 
 immersion, is no worse than the self-originated baptism of Spils- 
 bury or Roger Williams begun without a baptized administrator 
 to accomplish the same thing that Smyth purposed. Somebody 
 had to begin the administration of the ordinance ; and whether 
 self-baptized or not, Smyth, in the providence of God, was right 
 in principle if not in method and form of his baptism. The great 
 wonder is that scholars like Drs. Clifford and Angus, in the light 
 of history, should have been misled by such a forgery as the 
 "Ancient Records." As already said, Smyth and his followers 
 were Separatists, intensely opposed to Anabaptism, after reaching 
 Holland, down to 1608; and in the light of their own literature, 
 and according to Robinson and Ashton (his editor), Ainsworth, 
 Johnson, Jessop and other contemporaries, to say nothing of 
 Evans, Muller, de Hoop Scheffer and Barclay in more recent 
 times, it is utterly improbable to suppose that Smyth was already 
 a Baptist, immersed in the river Don at midnight, 1606, by John 
 Morton, or that he was ever immersed at all. 
 
 The tradition that Smyth was immersed under the claim of 
 being the founder of the General Baptist denomination, has 
 naturally been followed by a number of writers of later date, such 
 as Thomas Wall (1691), Giles Shute (1696), Daniel Neal (1722), 
 and still later by Taylor, Ivimey, Adshead, Punchard, Black- 
 burn, Masson, Price, Wilson and others who have been cited in 
 favor of the view that Smyth was immersed, or immersed him- 
 self. No testimony has been adduced by one of these writers to 
 prove Smyth's immersion; and it is pretty clear from the writings 
 of Smyth and his contemporaries — especially by the later revela- 
 tions of Ashton, Muller, Scheffer and others — that he not only 
 baptized himself, but did it by "affusion." If, as claimed by 
 Masson, Price and others, Smyth and Helwys had made the issue 
 with the Puritans on the mode as on the subject of baptism, the 
 fact would have appeared in their writings and in the writings of 
 their opponents. Prof. David Masson, M.A., LL.D. (Life of 
 John Milton, Vol. II., p. 540) represents Smyth in his separation 
 as not only "rejecting the baptism of infants altogether," but as 
 "insisting on immersion as the proper Scriptural form of the 
 rite." On p. 544, he assumes that the "Helwisse's folk" differed 
 from the Independents "on the subject of Infant Baptism and 
 Dipping." In a recent interview Prof. Masson seems to imply 
 that he drew his opinion from the utterance of Leonard Busher 
 
Origin of the General Baptists. 53 
 
 (16 1 4) and from Dr. Featley's " Dippers Dipt" (1644) and 
 Edwards' Gangraena (1646) as conclusive that Baptists had been 
 "Dippers" from John Smyth onward; but it is evident that, in 
 his great work, Prof. Masson had only incidentally examined 
 Baptist history from 1609 to 1641, and was unacquainted with 
 the documents and writers which overthrow his thesis — as we 
 shall see. 
 
 The only man of the time who in this reformatory movement 
 gave a single utterance in favor of immersion was Leonard 
 Busher (16 14), who denned baptism as "dipped for dead in 
 water." The isolation of that utterance indicates the universal 
 prevalence of sprinkling or pouring; and it seems to have been 
 lost in the universal silence of the waters which were undisturbed 
 by adult dipping. Crosby's explanation, as will be seen in an- 
 other chapter, that immersion prior to 1640-41 had been "dis- 
 used" even as an infant rite, and was "restored" as an adult 
 ordinance about that date, gives the reason for the silence. He 
 shows that the "ancient custom of immersion" had never been 
 "revived" in England since it was "disused" down to that time, 
 and since it was not known if the Anabaptists had begun it; and 
 the fact is confirmed by the voluminous testimony of writers who 
 discuss the subject from 1640-41, and onward. Busher's utter- 
 ance is like a flash of lightning and a clap of thunder on the 
 midnight sky of believers' baptism, which had lost its lustrous 
 symbolism; and the sky did not relume from the long night of 
 "disuse" until Blunt caught the distant echo and flash of Busher's 
 peal, and proclaimed and put in practice his plea for immersion. 
 Then the storm of controversy arose against the practice as some- 
 thing "new" and which nullified all other forms of baptism; and 
 the contest raged until the end of the seventeenth century. 
 Busher's definition was certainly apart from any practice of his 
 day. 
 
 It is probable that the Helwys-Morton people, in spite of per- 
 secution, increased in membership down to 1640-41, by the 
 number of churches ascribed to them in 1644; but it is likely 
 that this increase from 1640 to 1644 was f ar greater than from 
 161 1 to 1641. Ivimey's assumption, based upon the testimony 
 of Dr. Some, that as early as 1589 there were many churches of 
 this order in London and the country — or that such churches 
 succeeded to the seventeenth century — is without historical foun- 
 dation. The early origin and continuance of Baptist churches 
 
54 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in England seem to have a definite, however limited, history; 
 and it is not likely that any Anabaptist churches before 1641 in 
 England escaped the eye of history at the time. What Baptists 
 at that date did not generally know of themselves, their enemies 
 did ; and it is improbable that any Anabaptist conventicle, in any 
 locality of England, could have had an ancient origin and long 
 continuance without some record of its persecutors. The claim 
 of antiquity for the existence of any Anabaptist church before 
 1611-1641, other than those recorded between those dates, is 
 simply traditional and unreliable ; and if such a claim could be 
 established, it does not deny the absence or "disuse''' of immer- 
 sion among them applicable to the great body of Baptists, as we 
 shall see, who restored immersion in England, 1640-41. Such 
 long and unbroken existence as is claimed for the churches of 
 Canterbury, Eythorne, Hill ClirTe, Booking, and others, in an 
 enemy's country and under the perpetual surveillance and intol- 
 erance of the ecclesiastical and civil powers, seems improbable 
 without any authentic record of the fact — as already said. The 
 Baptist and other writers of the 17th Century know nothing of 
 these or any other immersion bodies before 1640-41; and if such 
 bodies in England had come down to that date the invariable 
 charge and defense of self- originated baptism after that date would 
 have been absurd. So of the charge and defense of "Separa- 
 tion" and "reformation." There is no possible explanation of 
 the terms of the 1640-41 controversy regarding Baptist baptism, 
 except upon the theory of a "revival of immersion" at the hands 
 of the whole Baptist body ; and a hundred writers, both Baptist 
 and Pedobaptist, contending over the subject for sixty years — 
 all over England — ought to have known if any immersion body 
 in the Kingdom had come down to 1640-41, and had not joined 
 in the restoration of the ordinance claimed to be "lost." 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164 1 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS. 
 
 Thomas Crosby, the first English Baptist historian (Vol. I., 
 pp. 147-149 ;. Vol. III., pp. 40-42), chronicles the origin of 
 what are called the first Particular or Calvinistic Baptist churches 
 in England, as distinguished from the General or Arminian Bap- 
 tists. He points to the year, 1633, as the date at which the 
 Particular Baptist movement began, as follows : 
 
 " In the year 1633, the Baptists who had hitherto been intermixd 
 among other Protestant Dissenters, without distinction, and so conse- 
 quently shared with the Puritans all the persecutions of those times, began 
 now to separate themselves, and form distinct societies of those of their 
 own persuasion." 
 
 He seems to imply that this was the origin of the first Baptist 
 churches in England ; but whatever his reason for thus expressing 
 himself, the origin of the Particular Baptist churches was syn- 
 chronous with the movement of 1633. He gives no data for the 
 assertion that the Baptists were individually "intermixed" with 
 the Puritans up to" that date ; but if his assumption is correct, 
 they must have agreed with the Puritans in doctrine and prac- 
 tice, except infant baptism. If there were such "intermixed" 
 Baptists they were unorganized and had no churches of their 
 own, but were in fellowship and co-operation with the Congrega- 
 tionalists. They were different in kind from the General Bap- 
 tists who retained till 1641 the fellowship and peculiarities of the 
 Mennonites ; and as the Particular Baptists retained the mixed 
 church or communion idea and their Calvinism inherited from 
 their ancestral relationship with the Puritans, so the General 
 Baptists retained, for the same reason, the peculiarities of the 
 Mennonites — especially their Pelagian, Socinian, or Arminian 
 tendencies. The particular Baptists were free from the Mennonite 
 
 55 
 
56 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 errors in doctrine and practice ; but with their otherwise Baptistic 
 doctrines and practices, they inherited from their Puritan ances- 
 tors the mixed church and communion fallacy, of which the 
 Jessey church was the mother. 
 
 For his account of the Particular Baptists Crosby cites the so- 
 called Kiffin Manuscript, or the Jessey Records, as his authority, 
 from which he collects the following facts : On the 12th of Sep- 
 tember, 1633, there was a secession from the Jacob-Lathrop 
 (Independent) church of the people he calls " Baptist," hitherto 
 " intermixed," upon the ground chiefly, according to Crosby: 
 
 " That baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked 
 upon the baptism they had received at that age as invalid : whereupon 
 most or all of them received a new baptism." 
 
 According to the Records the 1633 secession was based rather 
 upon dissatisfaction " with the churches owning the English 
 Parishes to be true churches; " and " denying the truth of ye 
 Parish Churches," and having "become so large that it might 
 be prejudicial," they "desired dismission that they might become 
 an entire church and further ye communion of those churches in 
 order amongst themselves." This dissatisfaction with regard to 
 the Parish Churches arose in 1630, according to the Jessey 
 Records, in the Jacob church because of those who had their 
 children baptized in the Parish Churches ; and notwithstanding 
 the compromise "Covenant" adopted in that year as a peace 
 measure, this dissatisfaction continued until the split in 1633 
 for the reasons expressed above. The secession of 1633 was 
 mainly an Independent movement which arose partly from ne- 
 cessity and which aimed at rebuking affiliation with the Parish 
 Churches and which looked to the furthering of " communion " 
 with other Independent churches which were "in order "and 
 did not so affiliate. There was an Anabaptist element among 
 the secessionists, such as "Mr. Eaton and some others" who 
 " received a further baptism," but the Records do not sustain 
 Crosby's statement that ' ' most or all of them received a new 
 baptism." Hence this 1633 secession could not have been 
 wholly a body of Anabaptists, or " Baptists," at the time of 
 their separation, though subsequently they became such ; and it 
 is proper to keep the Records in view since Crosby bases his 
 version upon them. Only a few of the secession were Anabap- 
 tists, at the start, who received a "further" or a "new bap- 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 57 
 
 tism," that is, believers' baptism as opposed to infant baptism; 
 but this does not appear to have been the main reason for the bulk 
 of the separation. As between Smyth and the Brownists at his 
 separation — or as between the General Baptists and the Men- 
 nonites in their relation — the question of baptismal mode was not 
 mooted, so between the Particular Baptists and the Puritans in 
 their relation or separation the mode of baptism was not in dis- 
 pute, which would certainly have been involved if the same 
 difference as to mode had existed as to subject. According to the 
 tract: "To Sion's Virgins," the mode of baptism in the Lathrop 
 church was unquestionably sprinkling. 
 
 In the year 1638 there was another secession of the same 
 character from the Jacob church, but based solely upon the 
 judgment of Mr. Eaton, which joined Mr. Spilsbury, and who was 
 evidently, at this time, pastor of the 1633 secession which had 
 probably become entirely Anabaptist and which is known as the 
 first Particular Baptist Church. Crosby errs (Vol. III., p. 42) 
 in calling this 1638 secession a separate church, since it joined 
 Mr. Spilsbury, who was then pastor of the 1633 secession. 
 There were six persons in this last secession who, "being of the 
 same judgment with Sam Eaton," were " convinced that Baptism 
 was not for infants, but for professed believers ; " and this is 
 the first intimation, so far as the Records show, that infant bap- 
 tism was a ground of separation. These were all Anabaptists, 
 and the presumption is that the 1633 secession had in 1638 be- 
 come entirely Anabaptist under Spilsbury's pastorate. It may 
 however have been a mixed church, since Spilsbury was an 
 open communionist and a pulpit aniliationist. 
 
 In 1639 Crosby says : " Another Congregation of Baptists was 
 formed, whose place of meeting was in Crutched-Fryars ; the 
 chief promoters of which were Mr. Green, Mr. Paid Hobson, 
 and Captain Spencer ; " but the Records say : " Mr. Green with 
 Captain Spencer had begun a Congregation in Crutched-Friars, 
 to whom Paul Hobson joyned who was now [1644] Wlt h many of 
 that Church one of ye Seven " — having just mentioned the 
 "Seven " in the preceding 1644 paragraph which, out of order, 
 is followed by the 1639 paragraph. There is no evidence that 
 this was an Anabaptist church, since only Paul Hobson ' ' with 
 many of that church," probably by separation, had become one 
 of the Seven Particular Baptist Churches which, in 1644, issued 
 the Confession of which Paul Hobson was one of the signers ; 
 
58 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 and so far as I have found, Green and Spencer were both 
 Brownists and the associates of Barebone in Brownist conven- 
 ticles and preaching, about the year 1641. (New Preachers, 
 New ; Brownist Conventicles, &c, p. 4.) Ivimey classes Green 
 and Spencer with the Baptists ; but so he does Barebone, with 
 whom they associated and who himself was also a Brownist. 
 Green, the "felt maker," is probably " Hatmaker"of the seces- 
 sion of 1633, mentioned in the Records; and Spencer was 
 called the ' ' horse-rubber " along with Barebone, who was called 
 the "leather-seller." 
 
 According to Crosby this ends the origin of the Particular 
 Baptist Churches prior to 1641 — except the 1640 movement for 
 the restoration of immersion which was introduced by these peo- 
 ple. In 1644 tne Particular Baptists numbered seven English 
 and one French Church, all in London, of the same faith and 
 order, according to the Jessey Church Records. 
 
 The old Jacob-Lathrop Church (Independent) according to 
 these Records, founded in 16 16, was not only the mother of 
 many of the Independent but of the Particular Baptist Churches 
 which took their rise in London. If there was an Anabaptist 
 element "intermixed" with this old church at the time of the 
 secession of 1633-1638, then from 1640 to 1645, under the pas- 
 torate of Mr. Jessey, it may be regarded as a Particular Baptist 
 Church in transition — if not such before that date. It finally 
 became Baptist in 1645, pastor and people; and, as already 
 said, it was from this church that the mixed church and com- 
 munion practice is traced through the English Particular Churches 
 down to the present time. As originally the Anabaptists were 
 " intermixed " and in communion with the Puritans, so the 
 Puritans have thus remained with the Particular Baptists. Perhaps 
 in embryo the Jacob-Lathrop Church was Baptist from 1633 
 onward — just as the Separatist Church of John Smyth was such 
 on going to Holland ; and in the providence of God these two 
 churches were the twin mothers of the Baptist denominations 
 — especially General and Particular — in England. Whatever 
 may be true of individual Baptist elements in England between 
 1600 and 1641, the two original Baptist movements, 161 1 and 
 1633, took formative shape in the churches of Smyth and Jessey, 
 both of which became Baptist and gave birth to the English 
 Baptist denomination which unitedly had 47 churches in 1644. 
 Some of the Congregational Churches, after 1641, as the Broad- 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 59 
 
 mead, Bristol, and others, became Baptist ; and if it is possible, 
 which is historically unknown, that there were any of the old 
 Lollard or Anabaptist elements or conventicles from the sixteenth 
 century latent in England before or after 1641 which developed 
 into Baptist Churches, they were absorbed by the general move- 
 ment of 1640-41, at which date they adopted immersion along 
 with the entire body, which together restored immersion at that 
 time and completed the reformation. 
 
 The immersion movement of 1640-41 is a special feature of 
 Particular Baptist origin, although it became the movement of 
 both Baptist bodies about the same period along different lines 
 of restoration ; but as I shall give, in another chapter, a fuller his- 
 tory of that movement I shall here confine myself to the inquiry : 
 Did the Particular Baptists sprinkle or immerse before 1641? 
 The more than probable practice of the Helwy's Anabaptists, 
 after the custom of the Mennonites, was affusion down to the time 
 of Blunt' s deputation to Holland in 1640; and we shall now dis- 
 cover that aspersion must have been the practice of the Particular 
 Baptists, according to the custom of their Puritan ancestors, from 
 1633 to 1641. They had no other baptism than that of their in- 
 fancy while "intermixed" with the Puritans ; and it was not until 
 their separation that they adopted believers' baptism evidently by 
 the same mode. As intimated, there was no controversy with the 
 Puritans about the mode before or after the separation; and 
 according to "Sion's Virgins," 1644, the practice of the Puritans, 
 especially the Jacob-Lathrop Church, was sprinkling. The 
 Jessey Records show that of the secession of 1633, "Mr. Eaton 
 with some others" received a "further baptism," or as Crosby 
 puts it, a "new baptism." This baptism was after the undisputed 
 mode of the Puritans; for if there had been a change of mode, 
 as there was of subject under the same contention, then we 
 should have heard that these Anabaptists adopted immersion in 
 1633, as Barclay (Inner Life, pp. 74, 75) thinks they did by mis- 
 take from not having seen the date, 1640-41, of the original Jes- 
 sey Church Records, when Blunt was sent to Holland. If there 
 had been any difference between the Puritans and Anabaptists as 
 to the mode, we should have had some record of that fact, just as 
 we have a record of their difference and separation based upon 
 the subject of baptism in 1638. As between Smyth and the 
 Brownists, so between Spilsbury and the Independents, the dif- 
 ference was well defined as to the subject, but not as to the mode 
 
60 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 of baptism; and although Anabaptism by any mode was the 
 offense down to 1641, immersion never became the crime until 
 after that date. Was it because it was taken for granted on 
 account of its prevalence before that date ? Exactly the reverse 
 was true among those from whom the Anabaptists separated and 
 with whom they were in controversy; and according to undis- 
 puted authority immersion in the English Church had become 
 extinct by 1600 A. D., and was in "disuse" in England, accord- 
 ing to Crosby, prior to the Blunt movement, 1640-41. It would 
 be unaccountable that Smyth and Spilsbury should split with the 
 Puritans on the mode of baptism, as on the subject, and neither 
 of them, before 1641, should leave a single sentence of such con- 
 troversy so voluminous about believers' as opposed to infant 
 baptism in the literature of the period. 
 
 This is strong circumstantial evidence growing out of the facts 
 of separation itself; but this evidence is amply confirmed by the 
 direct testimony of the Records of the Particular Baptist Move- 
 ment of a little later date and by the testimony of Hutchinson, 
 Crosby and other writers of the time. The immersion agitation 
 among the Baptists, 1640-41, indicates that not only the General, 
 but the Particular Baptists did not practice immersion until that 
 date. It originated in the question of a "proper administrator," 
 which resulted in the discussion and adoption of a proper mode of 
 baptism at that time; and although the movement has been 
 ascribed to the first Particular Baptist Church of England, it 
 seems to have originated, according to the Jessey Church Records, 
 in a joint inquiry between some of the members of both the 
 Spilsbury and the Jessey churches — one .an Anabaptist church 
 and the other an Anabaptist church in transition. Perhaps the 
 agitation had been going on for several years; and if so, it had 
 continued on down to 1640 through 1638, and it may be from 
 1633, when believers' baptism was likely introduced without a 
 baptized administrator. Possibly the Blunt party were affected 
 by the succession views of their Pedobaptist ancestors and in 
 conflict with the anti-succession principles of the Anabaptists, 
 foremost among whom was Spilsbury, who said: "Baptizednesse 
 is not essential to the administrator of baptisme." At all events 
 the agitation which began about a "proper administrator" de- 
 veloped into the discovery of the proper mode of baptism. 
 
 According to the so-called Kiffin Manuscript, or the Jessey 
 Church Records, the immersion movement came to a head in 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 6i 
 
 1640, apparently led by Richard Blunt with Mark Lucar, 
 Thomas Shepard and others of the Aforenamed" of Spilsbury's 
 church on the one side and Samuel Blacklock with others of 
 Jessey's church on the other, who became "convinced/' after 
 much conference and prayer, that dipping was baptism and could 
 only be enjoyed by sending to Holland for its administration. 
 The conclusion was based (1) upon Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; and 
 (2) upon the affirmation of the Manuscript : "None having then so 
 practiced in England to professed believers-" and Richard Blunt was 
 deputed to the Netherlands, where he received immersion from 
 John Batten, of the Collegiants, and who upon his return baptized 
 Blacklock, the two baptizing the rest that "were so minded" to 
 the number of 53 persons, whose names are given in the docu- 
 ment, January 9, 1641. Hutchinson confirms this Manuscript 
 account of sending to Holland for a "proper administrator"; and 
 Crosby substantially employs the Manuscript in his version of 
 precisely the same facts. He paraphrases the main sentence : 
 "None then having so practiced in England to professed be- 
 lievers," so as to read thus: 
 
 "They could not be satisfied about any administrator [proper or irregu- 
 lar] in England to begin this practice ; because though some in this nation 
 rejected baptism of infants [Anabaptists], yet they had not as they knew 
 of revived the ancient custom of immersion." (Vol. I., pp. 101, 102.) 
 
 Just before this, on page 97, Crosby affirms that "immersion had 
 for some time been disused," in England; and when his para- 
 phrase and this affirmation are put together he perfectly agrees 
 with the Records in the main sentence and expresses his opinion, 
 in so many words, that immersion down to 1640 had not been 
 "revived" by the Anabaptists of England and that they were, 
 therefore, practicing sprinkling and pouring. If immersion had. 
 been "disused" in England prior to Blunt's deputation to Holland 
 in 1640, and if there were some known in England as Anabap- 
 tists who "rejected the baptism of infants," but who were not 
 known to have "revived" the "disused" ordinance, then so far 
 as known they were in the continuance of sprinkling or pouring 
 and had never begun immersion, which is the logic of the case. In 
 other words, according to Crosby, they were known to be sprinkling 
 or pouring, but they were not known to have "revived" the "disused" 
 custom of immersion ; and hence the declaration of the Jessey 
 
62 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Records: " None having then [up to that time, 1640] so practiced 
 in England to professed believers." 
 
 But could the fact have been known, if they had "revived" it? 
 For, historically, it is implied that they had not continued it, nor 
 begun it, since its "disuse" in England. Surely, if they had be- 
 gun or continued it, Blunt and his party would have known it; 
 for Crosby's logic is that the Anabaptists could not have been 
 practicing immersion without reviving or beginning it anew. It 
 was not a question of continuance, but revival) and it is certain 
 that if Spilsbury and his church, to which Blunt, Lucar, Shepard 
 and the rest of the "forenamed" belonged, had begun or con- 
 tinued immersion from 1633, they would have known it. Some 
 of the party, if such had been the case, had probably been im- 
 mersed; but this, in the light of the Records, is a reductio ad 
 absurdum since Blunt and his party, in 1640, reached the conclu- 
 sion that dipping only, according to the Scriptures, was baptism; 
 that up to that time it had not been practiced in England to pro- 
 fessed believers ; and that to enjoy it they must go to Holland for 
 it. Hence the conclusion is that the Particular Baptists had not. 
 "revived" or continued immersion, and were therefore sprinkling, 
 after the custom of the Puritans. Among the number baptized 
 by Blunt and Blacklock were such men as Lucar, Shepard, 
 Gunne, Kilcop, and latterly, perhaps, Kiffin, three of whom were 
 signers of the Confession of 1644; and such men as these would 
 have subsequently corrected the statements of the Jessey Church 
 Records if they had been false. The writings of both Kiffin and 
 Kilcop confirm the main sentence of the so-called Kiffin MS. 
 
 But could Blunt and his party have known if the General Bap- 
 tists had "revived" immersion before 1640; for Crosby and the 
 Records both imply that they had not begun its practice with 
 their origin, and of course had not continued it down to 1640. 
 They were among the Anabaptists of England, of whom it was 
 not "known" that they had "revived" in order to "begin" the 
 ancient but "disused" custom of immersion; and hence were 
 known to be sprinkling or pouring for baptism. They were in 
 London and the country and in correspondence with each other 
 and with the Mennonites; and if some of them had begun or re- 
 stored the ordinance all of them would have known it; or if some 
 of them had "revived" it, all of them likely had done so. The 
 fact, in London, could not have well escaped Blunt and his party, 
 who lived there; and if it had escaped them, it could not have 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 63 
 
 eluded the surveillance of their enemies for thirty years, from 
 161 1 to 1 64 1. Crosby, with all the records before him in 1738-40, 
 declared that immersion had been "disused" in England prior to 
 Blunt's deputation to Holland; and in his interpretation of the 
 Jessey Church Records he affirms that it was historically unknown 
 if the Anabaptists of England had "revived" the "disused" ordi- 
 nance down to that time, which was 1640. It was known that 
 as Anabaptists they were practicing baptism by affusion, so long 
 as they had not "revived" or begun immersion; and without any 
 record of revival, the inference is that they continued their affu- 
 sion down to 1640. This is Crosby's logic and it is thoroughly 
 sustained by the jessey Records and by the silence of any history 
 to the contrary. Not a single instance of believers' immersion 
 has been pointed to as occurring among the Anabaptists of Eng- 
 land prior to 1641; and with the fact of its "disuse" historically 
 set up, this is presumptive evidence that such a custom among 
 Baptists did not exist until 1641. It is useless to argue the ques- 
 tion ab ignorantia, if the question is historically settled as to the 
 practice of the General and Particular Baptists as denominations. 
 There might have been sporadic cases of immersion in practice as 
 in utterance; but this in no way affects the question at issue. As 
 a denomination of people the English Anabaptists, if Crosby and 
 the Jessey Records are true — yea, if all the Baptist writers who 
 touch the subject in the seventeenth century are true — did not 
 practice immersion between 1611 and 1641; and inferentially 
 they practiced sprinkling and pouring as a fact well known, if it 
 was not known that they had "revived" immersion. 
 
 It has been affirmed that there were three Baptist churches, 
 Hill Cliffe, Eythorne and Booking, which dipped before 1641, 
 and three individuals, William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys and 
 John Canne, with Paul Hobson thrown in for "good measure," 
 who were dipped before that date. As already shown, the an- 
 tiquity of these three churches, as Baptist, is purely traditional. 
 Even if they had a continuance from the early Lollards, or Ana- 
 baptists, and anciently practiced immersion, that practice had 
 long been "disused" before 1641. There is not the slightest 
 evidence that they were in the practice of immersion prior to 
 1641, when the English Baptists "revived" it; and if the so-called 
 Kiffin Manuscript, or Hutchinson, Crosby, Spilsbury, Tombes, 
 Lawrence, Barber, Kilcop and other writers are authority, it is 
 clear, if these churches belonged to the "English Baptists" of 
 
64 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 1640-41, that, like the rest of them, they were practicing affusion 
 down to that date. 
 
 As to the three individuals cited there is not a shred of history 
 in proof that they were immersed before that date. William 
 Kiffin, as we shall see in another chapter, under the caption of 
 his own name, evidently never became a Baptist until 1641, ac- 
 cording to his own showing (Sober Discourse, p. 1) and other 
 citations which I shall give. Knollys, though an Anabaptist in 
 principle from 1636, was, as already seen, a member of the 
 Dover, N. H., Church [Puritan] in 1640; and after his return 
 to England he was evidently a member of the Jessey Church, in 
 which, in 1643, according to the Jessey Records, he was in a 
 controversy about the baptism of his child. He could not have 
 been immersed until after 1641 ; and it was not until 1645 tna t 
 he appears as a Baptist pastor in London. Rev. Charles Stovel, 
 who published the biography of John Canne, says : 
 
 "When introduced to us in the Broadmead Records at Easter after 
 1640, that is, April 25, 1 641, he appears to have been received as a man 
 well known, &c." 
 
 It was at this date that he appears as a "baptized man," April 
 25, 1 64 1, three months and a half after immersion had been in- 
 troduced by Blunt at Southwark, where Canne was well acquaint- 
 ed, and where he was probably immersed. (A Quest, in Bapt. 
 Hist., p. 77.) The inference that Paul Hobson was immersed 
 before 1641, because he joined a supposed Anabaptist church in 
 1639, and because Crosby erroneously calls it "Baptist," is in 
 the light of history, a gross logical non sequitur. 
 
 The only remaining question under this head arises : Which 
 was the first immersion church in England? As we have seen, 
 the Particular Baptists, some of them, took the initiative in the 
 restoration of immersion ; and, as we shall see, the whole Bap- 
 tist community, General and Particular, joined in the reforma- 
 tion about the year 1640-41. Crosby (Vol. III., p. 41) quotes 
 Neal (Hist, of the Puritans, Vol. II., p. 400) as saying that Mr. 
 Jessey "laid the foundation of the first Baptist congregation that 
 he had met with in England ; " but Crosby characterizes Neal's 
 statement as a "strange representation" in view of the Kiffin 
 MS. before him, showing that there were three Baptist churches, 
 J 633, 1638, 1639, in England "before that of Mr. Jessey's," 
 which never became Baptist until 1645. Neal seems to have 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 65 
 
 very carelessly read or remembered the Kiffin manuscript, which 
 Crosby lent him, and which fixes the first Baptist secession from 
 the Puritans in 1633, of which Spilsbury is supposed to have 
 been the pastor. Neal (Vol. III., p. 173, Hist. Puritans) makes 
 this first secession in 1638, and places Mr. Jessey as pastor; and 
 hence his further mistake in saying that Jessey "laid the founda- 
 tion of the first Baptist congregation in England." Jessey be- 
 came pastor of the Jacob-Lathrop Church in 1637; and the 
 second Baptist secession from this old church in 1638 went also 
 to Mr. Spilsbury's church — a secession which Crosby seems to 
 err in making a separate church, if Spilsbury was pastor of the 
 1633 secession. 
 
 Not only does Neal blunder in ascribing the first Baptist or- 
 ganization in England to the year 1638, under the pastoral care 
 of Jessey, but he blunders worse than ever when he says (Vol. 
 III., pp. 173, 174) that Mr. Blunt was sent by this Jessey church 
 of 1638 to the Dutch Baptists of Amsterdam, in 1644, for a 
 proper administrator of immersion, and upon his "return he 
 baptized Mr. Blacklock, a teacher, and Mr. Blacklock dipped 
 the rest of the society, to the number of fifty-three," in that year 
 (1644). He seems to have been wholly at sea with reference to 
 dates as well as with regard to the original organizations and 
 pastors of Baptist churches prior to the year 1640-41, the date at 
 which the so-called Kifrm Manuscript fixes the deputation of 
 Blunt to Holland and the baptism of the fifty-three persons Neal 
 found in the MS. The year 1644 was the date of the adoption 
 of the Confession of Faith by the Baptists in which they first de- 
 fined baptism as dipping ; and it is utterly impossible to suppose 
 that Blunt was sent to Holland for immersion in that year upon 
 the plea of the KifTin Manuscript that ' 'none had then so prac- 
 ticed in England to professed believers." Neal even goes so far 
 as to chronologically connect the Blunt movement and Featley's 
 statement that, in 1644, the Baptists had "rebaptised one hun- 
 dred men and women" in the rivulets and some arms of the 
 Thames, all of which goes to show his criminal indifference as to 
 the date and connection of facts, and the facts themselves, in 
 dealing with Baptist history — as well charged by Crosby. 
 
 But what became of this first immersed congregation is a ques- 
 tion of importance only in determining to what church it be- 
 longed. In the manuscript it is spoken of as " two companies," 
 evidently from the two churches (Spilsbury's and Jessey's) which 
 
 5 
 
66 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 " mett " and did l l intend to meet after this ; " and the indication 
 is that they entered into an uncovenanted but formal agreement 
 by which they "proceeded together," not only in setting apart 
 one respectively to baptize each company, which was solemnly 
 performed by Blunt and Blacklock, but that they were afterwards 
 a common body to which " many being added " they "increased 
 much. " This was probably the church of Blunt with whom were 
 associated Emmes and Wrighters, in 1646, and which Edwards 
 in his Gangrsena (Pt. III., p. 112) calls "one of the first and 
 prime churches of the Anabaptists now in these latter times." 
 He got his information concerning this from " a woman who 
 sometime was a Member of a Church of the Anabaptists," June 
 fifth, 1646. She says that "the church broke into pieces, and 
 some went one way, some another, divers fell off to no Church 
 at all." (Ibid, 113.) Wrighters, according to Edwards (Gan- 
 graena, Pt. I., pp. 113, 114), became a Seeker; and what be- 
 came of Emmes I am not informed. In what year, prior to 
 1646, this Blunt Church broke up is not stated, nor is its location 
 given; but if it were "the two companies" baptized by Blunt 
 and Blacklock, 1641, then it became extinct before 1646, and the 
 regular baptism theory based upon sending to Holland for a 
 proper administrator died among the English Baptists. About 
 1676 Bampfield sought in London to find the original administra- 
 tor of immersion ; but while he discovered several of the irregular 
 methods by which immersion had been restored in England, he 
 gives no mention of the Blunt method of going to Holland for 
 its regular administration, which tends to substantiate the Ed- 
 wards account and to lead to the conclusion that his movement, 
 rejected by the great body of the English Baptists as " needless," 
 was an insignificant affair which went to pieces and was soon 
 forgotten. It was quite common at the time Edwards wrote for 
 Anabaptists to seek another dipping, or what they called in some 
 of the literature of the time a "fourth baptism;" and some of 
 them abandoned their dipping altogether and turned Seekers 
 under the teaching and influence of the Familists. Hence it is 
 not strange that the Blunt movement under such influence, and 
 under the general ban of the Baptists, should have broken up 
 and been forgotten. The controversial writings of the period 
 make very slight intimation of the movement, if they refer to it 
 at all ; and it is certain that neither the General nor Particular 
 Baptists, subsequent to 1641, ever adopted or defended it. 
 
Origin of the Particular Baptists. 67 
 
 It has been usual to ascribe this first immersion movement to 
 the first Particular Baptist Church in England, as Evans does ; 
 and if the immersed body returned with Blunt, Shepard, Marke 
 Lucar, and others who were once or already members of Spils- 
 bury's Church, to that church, then the movement was absorbed 
 and as such lost in that church, so that the large secession from 
 Jessey's Church, 1641, went then to the first Particular Church, 
 which, though anti-successionist in the main, became immersion- 
 ist by the Spilsbury method about the same time — possibly, as 
 Dr. Newman suggests, in 1640. At all events, this regular 
 movement of Blunt seems to have been lost sight of in the great 
 anti-succession movement of the great body of the English Bap- 
 tists, as we shall see in the more fully detailed account of the 
 movement in a subsequent chapter. It is evident, at least, that 
 very few, if any, of the English Baptists, General or Particular, 
 ever adopted the Blunt method, or took their baptism from him 
 or his people, in the restoration of immersion as elaborately de- 
 tailed by Crosby, who declares that "the largest number and the 
 more judicious of the English Baptists " repudiated this method 
 and adopted the anti-succession or irregular method of restora- 
 tion. 
 
 This concludes the origin of the Particular Baptists of England 
 included between the years 1633 and 1 641. A full account of 
 the restoration of immersion in England at the latter date will 
 occasion some repetition of a few items under this head ; but 
 that event deserves a more specific and extended treatment since 
 Crosby dignifies it as a Baptist " reformation" or "beginning." 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 DISUSE OF IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 
 
 In his Preface to Vol. I., Crosby traces the history of the Anti- 
 pedobaptists from Luther's time (sixteenth century) backward to 
 primitive Christianity — confining his research almost exclusively 
 to our Continental brethren from p. xviii. onward. His purpose 
 was to refute the charge of Pedobaptists and Catholics that Bap- 
 tists had their origin with the fanatics of Munster. In the body 
 of Vol. I. Crosby begins what he claims as English Baptist his- 
 tory with John WycklirTe, 137 1; and through the Lollards, 
 Wyckliffeites and foreign Anabaptists of the fifteenth and sixteenth 
 centuries, he traces this irregular evangelical line as a kind of 
 Baptist succession without reference to the mode of baptism or 
 church organization and with reference simply to the practice of 
 believers' baptism as opposed to infant baptism and to their de- 
 votion to certain other Baptist principles and peculiarities. He 
 traces no organization among the Anabaptists of England till 
 1611-1633, and he does not refer to immersion as a mode of be- 
 lievers' baptism until in ' 'later times" it was restored by the Eng- 
 lish Baptists about 1640-41. 
 
 In his Preface to the Second Volume he is reminded that he 
 has not treated of English history from the first to the fourteenth 
 century ; and with a new turn to his thoughts he goes back to the 
 first century in England, and traces immersion from 100 A. D. 
 to 1600 A. D., when he says it became "disused." He refers to 
 the introduction of immersion in the world by John the Baptist ; 
 and without tracing its history through other countries he comes 
 directly to England. On page ii. of his Preface to Vol. II. he 
 says: 
 
 "The great prophet, John, had an immediate commission from heaven 
 before he entered upon the actual administration of his office. And as 
 the English Baptists adhere [now] chiefly to this principle, that John the 
 
 6S 
 
Disuse of Immersion in England. 69 
 
 Baptist was, by divine command, the first commissioned to preach the 
 gospel, and baptize by immersion, those that received it ; and that this 
 practice has been ever since maintained and continued in the world to the 
 present day [1738-40] ; and it may not be improper to consider the state of 
 religion in this kingdo??i ; it being agreed, on all hands, that the plantation 
 of the gospel here was very early, even in the Apostles days." 
 
 With this introduction, Crosby enters upon an enquiry as to 
 the early planting of Christianity in Great Britain, and he shows 
 that probably, for the first 300 years, adult immersion was the 
 only form of baptism known to the ancient British Christians. 
 For that period of time those who so practiced, he thinks, were 
 Baptists — although Evans thinks it only probable. In his Brief 
 Reply to John Lewis's Brief History of the Rise and Progress of 
 Anabaptism in England, &c. (1738, pp. 41, 42), Crosby refers 
 to this point in the Preface of his second volume then going to 
 press, on which he says : 
 
 "I shall endeavor to show, that Christians in the Island were English 
 Baptists, and that they continued so for 300 years ; and that, when, by a 
 general Massacre of the Monks of Bangor, the subject of Baptism was 
 changed, yet the Mode continued about 1200 Years afterward. But I shall 
 lay no great Stress upon these Things. For if it did appear, that the 
 Practice of the English Baptists was but Yesterday ; yet if it be found 
 consentaneous with the Word of God revealed in the Bible, all Customs y 
 Decrees of Councils, Articles of Churches, &c, would be to me of no 
 effect." 
 
 Granting that Crosby is right as to the first Christians in 
 Britain being "English Baptists," he here forbids their succession 
 and admits their continuance for only 300 years from the first 
 century ; and this, so far as Baptists were concerned, is all that 
 his Preface to the second volume was intended to show. From 
 this period down to 1189 A. D. — especially from 603 A. D. — 
 according to Crosby and Evans, no trace of the Baptist element 
 is discoverable in England at all ; and so far as immersion is con- 
 cerned, Crosby only traces it after the first three hundred years — 
 not through Baptists, who ended with that period — but through 
 the Romish and Episcopal Churches, as an infant rite, down to 
 1600 A. D., and there he declares it was "disused" and changed 
 to "sprinkling." Not only does he deny the succession of Bap- 
 tists from the first 300 years, but he breaks the succession of im- 
 
70 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 mersion at 1600, even as a perverted infant rite. Of course, 
 immersion under some form had "continued" somewhere "in the 
 world" from John the Baptist till 1738-40, and at that time was 
 practiced by the "English Baptists;" but in England neither 
 Baptists nor immersion had had an unbroken succession after the 
 first 300 years of the Christian era. 
 
 But let us see what the Preface says. From pages xiv.-xviii. 
 of his Preface, Vol. II., he shows, by the authority of such 
 writers as Fox, Rapin, Fuller and others, that the Saxon inva- 
 sion, 469 A. D., drove the British Christians into Wales, after 
 destroying their churches and most of their people, and that in 
 596 A. D., Austin's invasion and subsequent massacre either 
 completed their annihilation or subjected them to the Church of 
 Rome. About the year 600 A. D., Crosby thinks that infant 
 baptism was introduced by Austin, although it is almost certain 
 that it existed long before among the ancient British Christians, 
 and on page xxxiii., Preface, he says again : 
 
 "The subject of baptism being now changed in England and that by a 
 
 Romish emissary Yet the mode of baptism continued about one 
 
 thousand years longer; and baptism was performed by dipping those who 
 were baptized [whether infants or adults] into the water." 
 
 Crosby goes on then to show that adult immersion along with 
 infant immersion continued in the Romish Church in England 
 until the adult population had been converted to Christianity — so- 
 called; but as the centuries rolled on, adult immersion gradually 
 decreased, and infant immersion took its place ; the font taking 
 the place of the baptistery and the river. 
 
 On page xliii. of this Preface, Crosby says again : ' ' Though 
 the baptism of infants seems now (1016 A..D.) to be pretty well 
 established in this realm ; yet the practice of immersion con- 
 tinued many years longer ; " and he points out subsequently that 
 there were "persons not wanting to oppose infant baptism " — 
 alluding to certain Waldenses from France, Germany and Hol- 
 land, who, he says, " had their frequent recourse and residence 
 in the kingdom." This is Crosby's first mention of Anabaptism 
 in England since the conflict of Austin with the Welch Chris- 
 tians, 603 A. D., a space of over four hundred years, a fact 
 which Evans and later authorities do not mention. In the year 
 1 158 A. D. about "thirty" other Waldenses came over to 
 England who were supposed to reject infant baptism ; and this is 
 
Disuse of Immersion in England. 71 
 
 Crosby's second mention of Anti-pedobaptism in England. The 
 people of the date at which Evans asserts that history claims the 
 first revolt to Rome in England. Crosby mentions other Ana- 
 baptists in England in the reign of Henry II., 1182 A. D., and 
 in the time of Henry III., 1235 A. D., also in 1315 A. D. , 
 when he notices the introduction of the Lollards, which brings 
 him down to the time of Wyckliffe, 137 1 A. D., and where he 
 begins Baptist history, so-called, in his first volume, as already 
 mentioned. 
 
 On page xlvi., Preface, Crosby further observes : 
 
 '' Of Wyckliffe, his opinion, and his followers who were called Lollards, 
 I have given are account in chap. i. of the first volume. I shall now only 
 further observe, That the practice of immersion, or dipping in baptism, 
 continued in the church [of England] untill the reign of King James I., 
 or about the year 1600." 
 
 He quotes on page xlvii., Preface, Sir John Floyer, an English 
 churchman, who says : 
 
 " And I do here appeal to you, as persons well versed in ancient his- 
 tory, and cannons, and ceremonies of the Church of England ; and 
 therefore are sufficient witnesses of the matter of fact which I design to 
 prove, viz., That immersion continued in the Church of England till 
 about the year 1600. And from thence I shall infer, that if God and the 
 church thought that practice innocent for 1600 years, it must be accounted 
 an unreasonable nicety in this present age, to scruple either immersion or 
 cold bathing as a dangerous practice." 
 
 On page lii. Crosby says again : " Though the practice of im- 
 mersion was now generally disused in England, yet there were 
 some who were unwilling to part with this laudable and ancient 
 practice; 5 ' and he cites Sir John Floyer again, who speaks of 
 several persons who dipped their infants about 1640 (p. liii). 
 On the same page he speaks of the Welch who had " more 
 lately left off immersion." Henry Denne (A Contention for 
 Truth, p. 40), 1658, like Sir John Floyer, says: "Dipping of 
 infants was not only commanded by the Church of England, but 
 also generally practiced in the Church of England till the year 
 1600; yea in some places it was practiced until the year 1641 
 until the fashion altered." There was an occasional exception, 
 here and there a sporadic practice of infant dipping by the 
 
72 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 English Church people ; and now and then there was an excep- 
 tional defence of the ancient practice of infant immersion as by 
 John Wesley, Sir John Floyer, Master Rogers, George Downame, 
 and others; but in 1600 A. D. infant dipping had expired as an 
 ordinance in the Church of England — still allowed as at the 
 present time, but not practiced. 
 
 On page liv. (Preface, Vol. II.) Crosby concludes as follows: 
 
 " Thus I have traced the practice of the British Churches in point of 
 baptism till sprinkling took place. And to me it seems evident beyond 
 contradiction, that about three hundred years after the first plantation of 
 the gospel in Britain, no other baptism was used but that of adult persons, 
 by immersion, or dipping the body of the person, upon the profession of 
 his faith ; and that after the subject was changed, and infant baptism in- 
 troduced by a massacre of almost all that refused to comply with the 
 change ; yet the mode of baptism by immersion continued about twelve 
 hundred years " — 
 
 that is down to 1600 A. D. from the first century inclusive. 
 Jeffrey Watts (Scribe, Pharisee, &c, London, 1656) says: 
 
 "The Church of England hath been now a long time, time out of 
 mind, mind of any man living, in firm possession of baptism, and practice of 
 
 it by sprinkling, or pouring on of water upon the face and forehead." 
 
 • 
 
 Watts was a learned English clergyman, rector of Much Leighs, 
 and knew what he was saying ; and his testimony is proof that no 
 man living in 1656 could remember when immersion was prac- 
 ticed in England until the Baptists restored it. 
 
 Crosby does not show just when adult immersion, practiced 
 along with infant immersion, ceased in the ' ' British Churches ; " 
 but it ended when the font took the place of the baptistery and 
 the river, and when, as Bishop Burnet puts it, "The whole 
 world in that age [the Reformation] had been baptized in infancy." 
 (Hist. Ref., Vol. II., part ii., p. 113.) There was perhaps no 
 such thing as adult immersion in the Church of England at the 
 beginning of the , sixteenth century ; and infant immersion had 
 begun to be substituted by affusion at that date. In 1528 Tyn- 
 dale seemed to complain because the people manifested a prefer- 
 ence for immersion over affusion as a mode of infant baptism ; 
 and in 1570, the Catechism of Noel, which was adopted as sole 
 authority in the Church of England, at that time, prescribed 
 
Disuse of Immersion in England. 73 
 
 sprinkling as indifferent with immersion in the baptism of infants. 
 (Latin Collection, A. Howell, p. 207, Parker Publication So- 
 ciety. ) The Puritans universally sprinkled from the start ; and 
 the Presbyterians who, in 1643, rejected immersion even as the 
 alternate form of baptism, hao^lcng since abandoned dipping. 
 At the beginning of the Seventeenth century sprinkling or pour- 
 ing, with but little exception, was the universal mode of baptism 
 of all parties both on the Continent and in England ; and in 
 England there is no mention of adult immersion at the hands of 
 anybody until the Baptists restored it in 1640-41. There were, 
 as we have seen, some exceptional cases of infant immersion up 
 to 1640-41 and perhaps afterward; but no authority seems to 
 cite a single exception of adult immersion at the hands of any 
 religious body — not even by a legitimate inference. 
 
 In Vol. I., pp. 95-107, Crosby, as we shall see in the next 
 chapter, details the restoration of immersion in England by the 
 " English Baptists," and he prefaces the movement by the facts 
 revealed in his Preface to Vol. II., pp. ii.-liv., namely, that 
 " immersion," in England, "had been for sometime disused" 
 (p. 97) ; and this whole section in Vol. I. is in exact accord with 
 the Preface of Vol. II., which traces immersion in England only 
 through the " British Churches" down to the year 1600, when it 
 ended. He never mentions immersion by Baptists after the 
 British Christians of the first 300 years in England until about 
 1640-41. So far as Crosby or any other historian can show, 
 there is a hiatus of 1241 years in English history in which there 
 is not an allusion to Baptist immersion ; and the Jessey Church 
 Records and Crosby's Preface to Vol. II. are in absolute accord 
 as to the " disuse " of immersion before 1640-41 and its restora- 
 tion by the English Baptists at that time. Crosby's Vol. I., pp. 
 95-107, and his Vol. II., Preface, pp. i.-liv. , are thoroughly 
 consistent with each other. Immersion had continued ' ' in the 
 world," in some form, somewhere, from John the Baptist's to 
 Crosby's time, and was then in practice by the English Baptists, 
 1738-40; but in England it was " disused " in any form by 1600, 
 with but slight exception, as an infant rite, anywhere, even in 
 the English Church. As an adult rite and as the practice of 
 Baptists the succession of immersion is broken by a hiatus of 
 1 241 years until it wa.s restored by the English Baptists in 1640- 
 41. The Poland Anabaptists restored immersion in 1574. The 
 Collegiants of Holland restored it in 1620. The Collegiants 
 
74 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 may have received the ordinance from the Poles, and the Poles 
 from the Swiss Anabaptists and the Swiss from the Waldenses, 
 and these last from those who continued it from the apostles; 
 but immersion as an adult act seems to have been lost in Eng- 
 land long before the close of the sixteenth century under the 
 prevailing mode of sprinkling or pouring, and was only recov- 
 ered by the Baptists in 1640-41. 
 
 Now, if we take the account of Crosby, the first Baptist his- 
 torian, we are irresistably driven to the foregoing conclusion, 
 namely, that the Anabaptists of the Sixteenth and first forty 
 years of the Seventeenth century did not immerse in Eng- 
 land. It cannot be assumed in his account that he took immer- 
 sion for granted among the Anabaptists of this period, and 
 therefore did not trace its succession in England through them. 
 On the contrary, he distinctly claims the British Christians of the 
 first 300 years as Baptists, and asserts that they practiced immer- 
 sion. He then loses these first Baptists in the massacre or usurpa- 
 tion of the Romish Church, and he traces Baptist elements no 
 further in England for centuries. When he finds them again, 
 especially in the 16th century, as foreign elements, or when he 
 traces the origin of the English Baptist Churches to 1611-1633, 
 he says not a word about the immersion of the Baptists until they 
 revived it at a later date ; and yet he goes on carefully to trace 
 the succession of Romish and Episcopal immersion from 600 to 
 1600 A. D., when it ended in sprinkling. Before the Baptist 
 revival of immersion Crosby positively asserts that it ' ' had been 
 for sometime disused" — that is, from 1600 A. D. to the time of 
 its revival; and he thus clearly implies not only that immersion 
 was in disuse among the Pedobaptists, but also among the Bap- 
 tists. Therefore Baptists and Baptist immersion from the first 
 centuries had no unbroken succession in England ; and when 
 the foreign Anabaptists came into England in the 16th century, 
 and when the English Anabaptists organized their churches in 
 1611-1633, they did not, according to Crosby, practice immer- 
 sion. If they had so practiced he would have mentioned the 
 fact in tracing the history of immersion in England for the first 
 1600 years through the Romish and Episcopal Churches. 
 
 Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose that Crosby, 
 the first Baptist historian, would have traced a succession of im- 
 mersion for 1600 years through a Pedobaptist line, and left such 
 a succession out of the Baptist line, if it had existed. He does 
 
Disuse of Immersion in England. 75 
 
 not even trace it through the intervening gap of forty years from 
 1600 to 1640, during which period he gives the origin of the 
 first English Baptist Churches ; and surely for that period he 
 would have mentioned the fact if immersion had been the prac- 
 tice of the Baptists. On the contrary, he says, in his version of 
 the Jessey Church Records, that it was not known if they had 
 " revived the ancient custom of immersion" down to the date of 
 the manuscript, which was 1640-41. As a Baptist historian it 
 would have been his pride and glory, to say nothing of his duty, 
 to trace the history of immersion even through this reformatory 
 beginning of the English Baptists. He was an earnest defender 
 of the ordinance — he made a relentless fight against infant bap- 
 tism and sprinkling — he was a thorough Baptist ; and it would be 
 unaccountable with the material before him, and after such a 
 voluminous record of Baptist and related history, that he should 
 trace the line of baptismal succession in England, and never find 
 it except in the Romish and Episcopal Churches after the first 
 three centuries, if there was the slightest discovery of such a 
 succession among Baptists before 1640-41. His history of the 
 English Baptists is a most unpardonable blunder, if the Anabap- 
 tists from 1535 to 1641 — or from 161 1 to 1641 — practiced im- 
 mersion ; and if they did so practice he has recorded the most 
 palpable mistake in Baptist history, namely, that between 1600 
 and 1641 immersion was in disuse in England, and that the Bap- 
 tists restored it about the latter date. Such a blunder cannot be 
 predicated of such a Baptist as Crosby. His Preface to Vol. II. 
 was written for the express purpose of tracing the history of im- 
 mersion in England ; and he did all that could be done for Bap- 
 tists in showing their practice for the first 300 years, and their 
 return to the lost practice in 1640-41. 
 
 But naturally it will be asked : Why does Crosby call these 
 Anabaptists "Baptists," if immersion was lost in England and 
 they restored it at a later date? How can a people be called 
 Baptists by a Baptist historian when they did not practice immer- 
 sion? I can only say that it was the custom among writers of his 
 day to so call all the Anabaptist sects who practiced believers' 
 baptism and rejected infant baptism, whatever the mode. Rob- 
 inson (Hist. Baptism, 1790, p. 547) says: 
 
 "The Dutch Baptists reject infant baptism, and administer the ordinance 
 only to such as profess faith and repentance ; but they baptize by pouring.''' 
 
76 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Evans (1862) calls the English Anabaptists by the name ''Bap- 
 tists" at the very time he is conceding the more than probability 
 that they practiced Mennonite affusion. Crosby called every- 
 body "Baptists, 5 ' from the Lollards and Wyckliffeites down, whom 
 he regarded as holding Baptist principles, practicing believers' 
 .baptism and opposing infant baptism ; and the very people who 
 restored immersion, 1640-41 — and before they restored it — he 
 called "English Baptists" who adopted different methods to 
 accomplish what he calls their "beginning," or "reformation," 
 in baptism. Strictly speaking, those Anabaptists were not Bap- 
 tists until they adopted immersion; but in other particulars of 
 doctrine and practice they were Baptists — and so called for this 
 reason. Crosby, speaking of the origin of the "English Bap- 
 tists" (Vol. I., p. xviii., P.), says: 
 
 "They are generally condemned (1738-40) as a new sect, whose opinion 
 and practice with relation to baptism was not known in the Christian 
 Church till about 200 years ago" — (1549). 
 
 He is here and onward speaking of their ' 'opinion and prac- 
 tice" regarding believers' baptism, with no reference to mode 
 before 1640-41 ; for he never pretends to show that the practice 
 of immersion was adopted by the "English Baptists" until that 
 date. He nevertheless calls them "English Baptists" for 200 
 years back ; and so we are accustomed to speak of far more un- 
 baptistic sects before them — such as Montanists, Novatians, 
 Donatists, Paulicians, and the like, who would not now be fel- 
 lowshiped, ecclesiastically speaking, in any regular Baptist church 
 in America. 
 
 According, then, to Crosby, our first Baptist historian, who is 
 thoroughly sustained by all modern research in Baptist history, 
 there was no unbroken succession of Baptists or dipping in Eng- 
 land down to 1640-41. There was an occasional defense and 
 practice of infant dipping (and still is) among the English Church 
 people after the year 1600; but at that time sprinkling or pour- 
 ing became general, if not universal, among English Churchmen, 
 Presbyterians and Puritans. What was true of these was true of 
 the Anabaptists from 1538 to 1641 in England; and if among 
 them there were any exceptional or sporadic cases of believers' 
 immersion, the fact is historically unknown. It is impossible to 
 suppose the case otherwise, else, as already seen, Crosby, who 
 
Disuse of Immersion in England. 77 
 
 traces the only line of immersion in England for the first 1600 
 years, would not have ignored a single instance of immersion 
 among his Baptist brethren, nor would he have otherwise record- 
 ed the fact that after the lapse of 1 241 years they restored im- 
 mersion at a "later date." To be sure, he only implies that the 
 Anabaptists from 161 1 to 1641 were pouring or sprinkling for 
 baptism ; but he clearly takes the fact for granted when he only 
 traces immersion through the British churches down to 1600, and 
 then records its restoration by the English Baptists after its disuse. 
 He perhaps did not desire to emphasize the fact as a matter of 
 Baptist history, but he certainly implies the fact that the Baptists 
 were affusionists before 1640-41 by showing, at that date, that 
 they restored the "disused" ordinance, which they could not 
 have been practicing. 
 
 To sum up, Baptist succession, according to Crosby, was lost 
 in England after the first 300 years of Christianity in the Island. 
 The first Baptists were lost by extermination or usurpation, but 
 immersion continued through the Romish Church to 1535, with 
 the subject changed from the adult to the infant; and from 1535 
 to 1600 this infant immersion continued through the Episcopal 
 Church and was lost — having gradually changed to sprinkling. 
 Crosby faintly discovers a trace of Anti-pedobaptist elements in 
 England through the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries; he discov- 
 ers the line "more clearly" through the Dutch Anabaptists who 
 came into England during the 16th century; he finally traces the 
 origin of the English Baptists to their organizations, 161 1, 1633; 
 but he makes no claim for them of any sort of organic or bap- 
 tismal succession from prior Anabaptist sects or elements. On 
 the contrary, he demonstrates that they were Separatists from the 
 Brownists or Congregationalists, among whom, as Crosby asserts, 
 the Anabaptists were elementally "intermixed;" and then he 
 shows that at a later date — after their organization — they adopted 
 immersion. Crosby, with all the English Baptist writers I have 
 read, repudiates the doctrine of visible succession, in any form, 
 among Baptists. Denominationally he did not regard the Bap- 
 tists as a "new sect." He claimed the Anabaptist sects as Bap- 
 tist people before his day. Like other Baptist writers of his time, 
 and before him, he traced the pedigree of Baptist people and 
 principles back to the New Testament Churches ; but with all 
 other Baptist writers of that period, he regarded any succession 
 of the visible order of those churches as having been repeatedly 
 
78 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 broken. No doubt he would agree with Barclay (Inner Life, 
 pp. n, 12) that "the rise of the Anabaptists took place long 
 prior to the foundation of the Church of England" — that "small 
 hidden societies" holding Anabaptist "opinions" existed on the 
 Continent "from the times of the Apostles" — that in the sense of 
 the "direct transmission of divine truth and the true nature of 
 spiritual religion," Baptist Churches have "a lineage or success- 
 ion more ancient than the Roman Church ; " but he takes the 
 same position with Barclay that "in England, although traces are 
 found in history of the existence of the opinions of the Anabap- 
 tists from the earliest times, it is doubtful whether any churches 
 or societies of purely English Baptists have a distinct consecutive 
 existence prior to 161 1." Crosby knows of no such "consec- 
 utive existence;" and in the origin of the English Baptist 
 churches which he repeatedly represents as having had a "be- 
 ginning," and as having set up a "reformation" of their own, he 
 distinctly repudiates their visible succession, organically or bap- 
 tismally, from preceding Anabaptists. He distinctly shows that 
 they organized 1611-1633 upon the principle of believers' bap- 
 tism, and that afterwards they revived immersion ; and if there 
 were any Anabaptist churches or societies which existed in Eng- 
 land prior to 161 1, they were historically unknown to Crosby 
 and the Baptist writers of the 17 th century. Even if they had 
 existed, Crosby traces no succession of immersion through them ; 
 and he shows that at a given date the English Baptists, without 
 distinction, "revived the ancient practice of immersion. " 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION, 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 RESTORATION OF IMMERSION IN ENGLAND. 
 
 As Crosby is the only Baptist historian who has undertaken 
 to trace the history of immersion in England and to show the 
 point at which it became "disused," in the year 1600, so he is 
 the only one who details the facts and the methods of its restora- 
 tion at a later date by the "English Baptists/' 1640-41. This 
 section of English Baptist history has already been anticipated ; 
 but Crosby makes it so elaborate, plain and important that it 
 needs a special and larger treatment. It has been avoided, or 
 else perverted, by most of our Baptist historians; but since 
 Crosby had the candor to acknowledge and incorporate it in his 
 History of the English Baptists (Vol. I., pp. 95-107) — employ- 
 ing twelve pages for the purpose — it is but the part of the un- 
 partisan and honest reader to give it a candid investigation and a 
 fair place in the annals of our denomination. It has been sought 
 to show that in this section of his history he is merely detailing 
 the movement of a handful of Pedobaptists who, upon the 
 abolition of the High Commission Court of England, got to 
 reading their Bibles, discovered that immersion was Scriptural 
 baptism, adopted it, and thus in a proper sense restored it in 
 1 64 1 ; but if there is anything clear in this part of Crosby's his- 
 tory, it is that he details one of the most important and extraor- 
 dinary movements of Baptist annals. It was, in his own 
 language, a Baptist "beginning," "reformation," in baptism; 
 and he shows us the starting point at which modern, English- 
 speaking, Baptists strictly became such according to the external 
 mark — immersion — by which we are distinguished. But for the 
 irrational and unscriptural tradition of "succession" — a Romish 
 dogma which the great body of early English Baptists, from 
 Helwys to Spilsbury, and all the rest, repudiated — we should 
 find no difficulty in understanding and accepting Crosby's ac- 
 
 79 
 
80 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 count of the restoration of immersion by the English Baptists; 
 and to the end of a right understanding of facts in the case, I 
 humbly dedicate this effort, in the interests of true Baptist his- 
 tory and to the honor of our denomination, which is built upon 
 the word of God, and not upon traditional fictions. 
 
 This section in Crosby's history is apparently a digression in 
 which he pauses to meet an objection, chiefly urged by Dr. 
 Wall, that the Baptists had no "proper administrator" of immer- 
 sion, since it had been disused, and since they had received it as 
 restored by John Smyth, who had baptized himself in Holland 
 (Vol. I., p. 95). In order to meet this objection, and to repudi- 
 ate the succession of Smyth's baptism to the English Baptists, 
 Crosby shows that the Baptists restored immersion in England, 
 according to the Hutchinson Account, the so-called Kiffin Man- 
 uscript and the writings of such men as Spilsbury, Tombes, 
 Lawrence, and others, at a given time, distinct from the time of 
 Smyth and his followers. This date is fixed by the Kifnn Man- 
 uscript, which Crosby uses as valid historical testimony, and 
 which sets 1633, 1638, 1639, 1640 and 1641 as the respective 
 periods in which the first Particular Baptist Churches were 
 formed and in which the baptismal restoration movement took 
 place. Crosby does not retain the date 1641 in his, for sub- 
 stance, version of the Kiffin Manuscript, but he does retain all 
 the other dates, including 1640, in his reference to what he calls 
 the Kiffin Manuscript; and he minutely details all the facts 
 which belong to the 1641 date, so that it is unequivocally implied 
 in Crosby's account of the restoration movement. The facts, as 
 he relates them (Vol. I., pp. 96-107), are as follows: 
 
 " 'T is certain (p. 96) that when some of the English Protestants ["Eng- 
 lish Baptists," p. 97] were for reviving the antient practice of immersion, 
 they had several difficulties thrown in their way about a proper adminis- 
 trator, to begin that method of baptizing. 
 
 "Those who rejected the baptism of infants, at the beginning of the 
 reformation in England [1535], had the same objection made against them; 
 as Bishop Burnet observes : 
 
 " 'One thing,' says he, 'was observed, that the whole world in that age, 
 having been baptized in their infancy, if that baptism was nothing, then 
 there was none truly baptized in being, but were all in a state of nature. 
 Now it did not seem reasonable, that men who were not baptized them- 
 selves, should go and baptize others; and therefore the first heads of that 
 
Restoration of Immersion in England. 8i 
 
 sect, not being rightly baptized themselves, seemed not to act with author- 
 ity when they went to baptize others.' 
 
 "In like manner," says Crosby (p. 97), "did they now argue against 
 reviving the practice of immersion, which had for sometime been disused: 
 If immersion be the essential form of the ordinance, then there is none 
 truly baptized ; and can an unbaptized person be a proper administrator ; 
 or can a man be supposed to give that to another, which he has not first 
 received himself? " 
 
 This is the Pedobaptist argument which began upon the agita- 
 tion of the revival of immersion by the Baptists — before, or 
 when they "were for reviving the ancient practice" — and the ar- 
 gument in 1640-41 was precisely the same in principle at the 
 beginning of the Puritan Revolution that it was at the beginning 
 of the Episcopal Reformation in 1535. The Anabaptists who 
 adopted believers' baptism, most likely by affusion, in 1535, and 
 rejected infant baptism, according to Bishop Burnet, nullified 
 the baptism of the ' 'whole world," which had been received in in- 
 fancy, and when the Anabaptists, who had no other baptism them- 
 selves, to begin with, introduced believers' baptism without any 
 previous or proper administrator. Just so now in 1640-41, the 
 Pedobaptist argument is the same with reference to the mode of 
 baptism. If these Baptists, who had already adopted believers' 
 baptism by affusion which nullified all baptism received in in- 
 fancy, now adopt immersion as the essential form of baptism, 
 then they argue that "there is none truly baptized" as to mode; 
 and like their ancient progenitors who had no proper adminis- 
 trator to begin believers' baptism by any mode, so these Baptists 
 had no proper administrator to begin the practice of immersion. 
 This Pedobaptist position is an argument which unanswerably 
 proves that this agitation for the restoration of immersion was a 
 Baptist movement, to begin with, whenever it was. 
 
 "This difficulty," continues Crosby, " did not a little perplex the Eng- 
 lish Baptists [p. 97, margin] ; and they were divided in their opinion how 
 to act in the matter, so as not to be guilty of any disorder or self-contradic- 
 tion. Some indeed were of opinion that the first administrator should 
 baptize himself, and then proceed to baptize others. Others were for 
 sending to those foreign Protestants that had tised inunersion for some time, 
 that so they might receive it from them. And others again thought it 
 necessary to baptism that the administrator be himself baptized, at least 
 
82 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in an extraordinary case ; but that whoever saw such a reformation neces- 
 sary, might from the authority of Scripture lawfully begin it." 
 
 Nothing is clearer here than that, according to Crosby, this 
 was a Baptist movement. None but Baptists, already in the 
 practice of believers' baptism and proposing to change from 
 affusion to immersion, could have been "divided" and " per- 
 plexed " so as to avoid " disorder" or "self-contradiction" in 
 the change. They were in a difficulty about a previous or 
 proper administrator ; and as they had the true theory of church 
 organization based upon regenerate church membership and be- 
 lievers' baptism, they still wanted to be consistent with Scrip- 
 ture, not only in adopting the right mode of baptism, but in 
 having a proper administrator. All this would never have oc- 
 curred to Pedobaptists desiring to adopt immersion. The very 
 fact that the division of opinion is expressed by the suggestion 
 of the three modes proposed for the restoration of immersion, 
 shows it to have been a Baptist movement, i. There was the 
 old self-baptism theory of some of the old Helwys Baptists who 
 never changed from Smyth's idea even when he abandoned it. 
 2. There was the Puritan idea of regular baptism suggested by 
 some of the Particular Baptists who caught their view from the 
 Puritans. 3. There was the Spilsbury idea of some who took 
 the position that when immersion was lost, some one had a right 
 under the Scriptures to begin it without a baptized administrator 
 — like John the Baptist. There is no possible chance to ascribe 
 this perplexity and division of opinion — characterized by the 
 several shades of well-known Baptist sentiment — to Pedobaptists 
 trying to meet a Pedobaptist argument, which is an absurdity. 
 More than this, a restoration of immersion could not be predi- 
 cated of Pedobaptists, at all, if the Baptists were at the same 
 time practicing immersion all around them. 
 
 Crosby continues (p. 97) to say of the first, or self-baptism, 
 method proposed: " I do not find any Englishman among the 
 first restorers of immersion in this latter age accused of baptizing 
 himself, but only the said John Smyth ; and there is ground to 
 question that also." On pages 97-99, Crosby proceeds to an- 
 swer the charges of Ainsworth, Jessop and others that 
 Smyth baptized himself. He did not have Smyth's writings; 
 but he argues from their quotation of Smyth (Character of the 
 Beast, pp. 58, 59) the probability that he did not baptize him- 
 
Restoration of Immersion in England. 83 
 
 self. Unfortunately for so candid a historian as Crosby is, he 
 mutilates and garbles the quotation — that is, if he had it entire — 
 and his argument is wholly fallacious. However, he summarily 
 drops the subject and thus (p. 99) concludes : 
 
 " But enough of this. If he were guilty of what they charge him with 
 'tis no blemish upon the English Baptists ; who neither approved of any 
 such method, nor did tJiey receive their baptism from him." 
 
 If this be true they did not receive their immersion from 
 Helwys, Morton or their church, who were baptized by Smyth, 
 and who "joined with him," Crosby says, in that " reformation 
 of baptism," whatever it was, which took place in Holland, 
 1609. Crosby evidently believed the "tradition" that Smyth 
 was immersed, though not satisfied about his self-baptism ; but 
 he emphatically repudiates his baptism as never having suc- 
 ceeded to the "English Baptists." Hence, he could not have 
 believed that immersion from this source was ever brought to 
 England ; or if he did he must have believed it was lost in the 
 " some time " which preceded its restoration, which he positively 
 ascribes to the "English Baptists." Otherwise his opinion 
 would be contradictory of his restoration account, which is im- 
 possible. The true reason, however, which makes his restora- 
 tion account consistent with the facts in the case, is that Smyth 
 was affused and never immersed, and this is the baptism which 
 Helwys and his church brought to England. 
 
 After summarily dismissing the self-baptism method as never 
 having been adopted by the "English Baptists," whether from 
 Smyth or any one else, and which absolutely precludes the idea 
 of receiving it from Helwys, Morton or any of Smyth's follow- 
 ers, who had never begun or revived immersion before 1640-41, 
 Crosby proceeds (p. 100) to say : 
 
 " The two other methods I mentioned, were both taken by the Baptists, at 
 their revival of immersion in England ; as I find it acknowledged and justi- 
 fied in their -writings." 
 
 This settles the question in a single paragraph. It was a 
 " Baptist" movement by " two other methods" than the Smyth 
 method or succession of self-baptism; and it took place in 
 "England," not in Holland. Nor was it a matter of "tradi- 
 tion," but drawn from the writings of English Baptists, who 
 
84 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 both acknowledged and justified the movement based upon the 
 "two methods]'' of restoration. It was a well-known movement 
 about which there was, at a given time, a sharp and prolonged 
 controversy ; and Crosby gleaned from it his clear and accurate 
 account and handed it down to us from such writers as Hutchin- 
 son, Kiffin, Spilsbury, Tombes and Lawrence. It was a move- 
 ment of "ENGLISH BAPTISTS," as a body, without distinc- 
 tion of General or Particular, or of section or locality ; and no 
 sort of sophistry or casuistry can here frame an argument which 
 can ascribe such a movement to a handful of Pedobaptists, or 
 characterize it as an insignificant or obscure affair confined to a 
 few. Nor was it just an impulse of liberty, in the year 1641, 
 " when the Baptists came out of their holes to publish their 
 views" which, because unknown before the " Year of Jubilee," 
 were considered " new ! " This was to some extent true; but 
 the half has never been told. In that year the Baptists made a 
 new departure. They had a new "beginning," instituted a 
 "reformation," in which, li at their revival of immersion in Eng- 
 land,'" they created a new era — "acknowledged and justified" 
 by their writers at the time and afterwards. But let us now ex- 
 amine the "two methods" by which the English Baptists wrought 
 this important revolution. 
 
 1. The regular baptis?n method. Crosby says (p. 100) : 
 
 "The former of these [methods] was, to send over to the foreign Ana- 
 baptists, who descended from the antient Waldenses in France or Ger- 
 many that so one or more receiving baptism from them, might become 
 proper administrators of it to others. Some thought this the best way 
 and acted accordingly, as appears from Mr. Hutchinson's account in the 
 epistle of his treatise of the Covenant and Baptism." 
 
 On pages 100, 101, Crosby quotes this Hutchinson account in 
 full and in confirmation of the restoration of immersion by this 
 first method of sending to Holland for a "proper administrator." 
 Hutchinson says : 
 
 "The great objection was, the want of a proper administrator ; which, 
 as I have heard, says he, was removed, by sending certain messengers to 
 Holland whence they were supplied." 
 
 On pages 101, 102, Crosby cites the 1640-41 section of the 
 so-called Kiffin Manuscript in confirmation of the adoption of 
 
Restoration of Immersion in England. 85 
 
 this * 'former method" of restoring immersion by the "Baptists" of 
 England. "This [Hutchinson's Account] agrees," says he, 
 "with an account given of the matter in an antient manuscript, 
 said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin, who lived in those 
 times, and who was a leader among those of that persuasion" — 
 that is, perhaps of the regular baptism theory of those who sent 
 to Holland for a "proper administrator" of immersion. This 
 manuscript, as Crosby quotes it, details the facts which led these 
 Baptists seeking regular baptism to the conviction that baptism 
 should be administered by dipping in resemblance of burial and 
 resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), and to send Richard Blunt 
 to the Netherlands, where he received immersion from John 
 Battefn] [of the Collegiants and successor to the Brothers Van 
 der Codde, according to Barclay], and who upon his return bap- 
 tized Samuel Blacklock, a minister, these two in turn baptizing 
 "the rest of the company, whose names are in the manuscript, to 
 the number of fifty-three." 
 
 " So," says Crosby, "those who followed this scheme, did not derive 
 their baptism from the aforesaid Smyth, or his congregation at Amsterdam, 
 it being [from] an antient congregation of foreign Baptists in the Low 
 Countries to whom they sent." 
 
 This is another repudiation of the baptism of Smyth and of 
 his "congregation" as never having succeeded to the "English 
 Baptists;" and it is an unqualified statement of the fact, accord- 
 ing to the authority of Hutchinson and the Jessey Church Rec- 
 ords that it was the first or "former method" by which the 
 "English Baptists," as such, restored immersion in England — 
 and that, too, in the year 1641, which is the date of the event as 
 recorded in the manuscript from which Crosby substantially but 
 explicitly quotes. This is the first or "FORMER METHOD;" 
 but this is only a small part and only the beginning of the move- 
 ment. Further and bigger, . 
 
 2. The Anti-succession Method. On page 103, Crosby con- 
 tinues to record what he calls the "last method of restoring true 
 baptism" by the "greatest number of the English Baptists, and 
 the more judicious ; " and which he declares also did not succeed 
 from Smyth. He says : "But the greatest number of the Eng- 
 lish Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this [the 
 sending of Blunt to Holland for a proper administrator of im- 
 
S6 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 mersion] as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old 
 Popish Doctrine of right to administer the sacraments by an un- 
 interrupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor 
 the Church of England, much less the modern dissenters, could 
 prove to be with them. They [the largest number of the Eng- 
 lish Baptists, and the more judicious] affirmed therefore and 
 practiced accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an 
 unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a 
 reformation." This was the anti-succession or ''LAST 
 METHOD" of restoring immersion by the "largest" and 
 "more judicious" of the "English Baptist" body who "affirmed" 
 this theory not only in opposition to the Smyth method of self- 
 baptism, but against the Blunt method of succession, as the great 
 body of Baptists considered it, and who "practiced accordingly" 
 upon the adoption of their method upon or after the sending of 
 Blunt to Holland. 
 
 In confirmation of this "last method" of restoring immersion, 
 Crosby (pp. 103, 104) quotes Spilsbury, who took the position 
 "that where there is a beginning, some one must be first; " and 
 he assumed that "baptizednesse is not essential to the adminis- 
 trator" of baptism thus begun. "Now," says Crosby, "it is not 
 possible that this man [whom Wall charged with going to Smyth, 
 in Holland, for baptism] should go over sea to find an adminis- 
 trator of baptism, or receive it from the hands of one who bap- 
 tized himself." Thus both the "former" and the "last" methods 
 of restoring immersion are made to have no connection with 
 Smyth or his congregation. 
 
 On pages 104, 105, Crosby quotes Tombes, also, in confirma- 
 tion of this "last method" of restoration. He says: "The 
 learned Mr. Tombes does very excellently defend this last method 
 of restoring true baptism" — keeping up, in the order of time, the 
 precedence of what they called and stigmatized as the succession 
 method of restoring immersion before that of the anti-succession 
 method which followed upon or after the agitation of the first. 
 
 On pages 105, 106, Crosby quotes Lawrence in defense of 
 this "last method," who takes the same position as Spilsbury 
 and Tombes that "after an universal corruption" of baptism, and 
 when "no continuance of adult baptism can be proved " as was the 
 case at that time, the ordinance could be restored by an unbap- 
 tized administrator, as was "John the Baptist." Crosby speaks 
 of Lawrence as "another learned Baptist, who has excellently 
 
Restoration of Immersion in England. 87 
 
 defended the true baptism, and the manner of reviving it in these 
 later times. 
 
 Crosby concludes his history of the restoration of immersion 
 by the "English Baptists" (pp. 106, 107) as follows: 
 
 " 'Tho' these things were published at different times, I have put them 
 together, to end the matter at once. It was a point much disputed 'for some 
 years. The Baptists were not a little uneasy about it at first; and the 
 Pedobaptists thought to render all the baptizings among them invalid, for 
 want of a proper administrator to begin that practice : But by the excel- 
 lent reasonings of these and other learned men, we see their [the Baptists'] 
 beginning was well defended, tipon the same principles on wkick all other 
 Protestants btiilt their reformation.'''' 
 
 To the point at issue, this final passage, like all the rest that 
 Crosby says on the subject, speaks for itself; but I wish to draw, 
 in conclusion, the following argument from Crosby's premises, 
 which I think is unanswerable : 
 
 1. There was a "general" or "universal corruption" of bap- 
 tism. "Immersion had for some time been disused." "No 
 continuance of adult baptism could be proved;" and the Eng- 
 lish Baptists revived immersion at a period called then "later 
 times." 
 
 2. The "English Baptists," in these "later times," had a "be- 
 ginning' which is called a "reformation" established "upon the 
 same principles on which all other Protestants built their refor- 
 mation" — that is by self-originated introduction — "beginning" in 
 pri7iciple with John Smyth and ending in practice in 1640-41. 
 
 3. According to Crosby, the earliest organizations of Baptists 
 in England were respectively 161 1, 1633; an d he details the 
 restoration of immersion by these "English Baptists," in Eng- 
 land, without distinction as a body at a given time, without any 
 division as to date, at a later period. 
 
 4. The Baptists of England, according to this first historian, 
 who stands uncontradicted, could not have had any organic con- 
 tinuance before 1611, 1633, in England; and whether organized 
 or unorganized, they could not have had a continuance of im- 
 mersion from the first century if they had an immersion "begin- 
 ning," or "reformation," in the "later times" to which Crosby 
 refers. Crosby wholly proves that the Baptists of England have 
 no organic succession before 1611, 1633; and no baptismal (im- 
 
8S English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 mersion) succession before a "later" date, this side of their 
 organization. 
 
 5 . The question remains : What is the date within the period 
 of the "later times" when the "English Baptists" restored im- 
 mersion, or had a baptismal "beginning" or "reformation" as 
 "other Protestants" did and upon the "same principles?" The 
 only answer which can be given, according to the history of the 
 time, is 1640-41. Crosby left out the 1641 date, and hence 
 Ivimey, who follows him, says that the date of this event is un- 
 certain; but the Jessey Church Records, or the Kiffin Manuscript, 
 which is Crosby's authority for the facts of that date, supplies 
 that date beyond all question. 
 
 6. Hence, Crosby's Preface, Vol. II., perfectly agrees with 
 this section of Vol. I. (pp. 95-107). In the former he shows 
 that immersion which continued in the "British Churches" only 
 from the 1st to the end of the 16th century and was "disused," 
 even as an infant rite ; and in the latter he shows that after its 
 disuse in general for forty-one years — and when "the con 
 tinuance of adult immersion could not be proved," or was "uni- 
 versally corrupted" — it was restored by the "English Baptists," 
 that is, in 1640-41, prior to which it "had for some time been 
 disused" — so "long disused," according to the Bampfield Doc- 
 ument, "that there was no one to be found who had been so 
 baptized." 
 
 7. The restoration of immersion in England, 1640-41, was, 
 therefore, a Baptist movement — a Baptist "beginning" or 
 "reformation" — and not a Pedobaptist movement; and the most 
 absurd proposition recently stated is that such a movement could 
 have been properly a restoration of immersion at the hands of 
 Pedobaptists, while the Baptists all around them were practicing 
 immersion ! 
 
 Ivimey (Vol. I., pp. 139, 140), Hist. English Baptists, says of 
 this movement : 
 
 " It must be admitted that there is some obscurity respecting the man- 
 ner in which the ancient immersion of adults, which appears to have been 
 discontinued, was restored, when, after the long night of anti-Christian 
 apostacy, persons were at first baptized on a profession of faith. The very 
 circumstance, however, of their being called Anabaptists as early as the 
 period of the Reformation proves that they did, in the opinion of the 
 Pedobaptists, r<?baptise, which is not likely they would do, by pouring or 
 
Restoration of Immersion in England. 89 
 
 sprinkling, immersion being incontrovertibly trie universal practice of the 
 Church of England at that time." 
 
 Ivimey is at sea with reference to the..time of this restoration 
 of immersion, which did not take place with the Anabaptists 
 at the beginning of the Reformation of the English Church, 
 1535, but at the beginning of the Puritan Revolution, 1641. 
 More than this, the very thing he takes to be unlikely is more 
 than likely, namely, that the Anabaptists at the time of the 
 Reformation did pour or sprinkle for baptism; and it is not " in- 
 controvertibly" true that the English Church, even before the 
 close of the Reformation period, universally immersed. 
 
 Again Ivimey (p. 144), after giving Crosby's history of the 
 restoration of immersion by the English Baptists, says : 
 
 " It may perhaps be thought that this statement is incompatible with 
 the history of the Baptists already given. What occasion, it may be ob- 
 jected, was there to send out of the kingdom a person to be baptized by 
 immersion, if there were at the same time so many persons in it who had 
 been baptized in the same manner? Might not one of them have been 
 the administrator? " 
 
 Yes, verily, if any of them had been immersed ; but the Jes- 
 sey Records and the Bampfield Document show that there were 
 none such, and for this very reason Blunt was sent to Holland 
 for the ordinance for the benefit of those who sought regular 
 baptism ; whereupon the anti-successionists originated an admin- 
 istrator of their own, and likewise began immersion without send- 
 ing to Holland for it. Ivimey tries to answer the objection, 
 which he raises for the sake of argument, that at the time Blunt 
 went to Holland it would have been difficult to find an immersed 
 minister by reason of persecution which had driven "almost all 
 the Baptists out of the Kingdom," which is denied by Evans; 
 but then (p. 145) he adopts the probability that if such a minister 
 could have been found by those who sent Blunt to Holland, they 
 would have been so affected by the Popish doctrine of succession 
 that they would not have accepted immersion from such a minis- 
 ter unless he had had it by succession himself — all of which 
 Evans also shows as more than improbable, since the General 
 Baptists who preceded the organization of the first Particular 
 Baptist Church and Blunt's deputation to Holland were affusion- 
 ists and not immersionists. (Evans, Vol. II., pp. 52, 53, 79.) 
 
90 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Of course, Ivimey did not have these facts before him when he 
 wrote in 1811 ; nor did he have the original Jessey Church Rec- 
 ords before him, as Crosby had, which gave the date of the res- 
 toration of immersion as 1640-41. Hence he says: " It is not 
 known at what precise period this happened." (p. 145, Vol. I.) 
 Dr. Armitage had the identical so-called Kiffin Manuscript 
 before him (1887); but, like all the other Baptist historians who 
 have dealf evasively with the restoration movement of the Eng- 
 lish Baptists, he regards the attempt to show that none of the 
 English Baptists practiced immersion prior to 1641 as "feeble 
 and strained." He cites the testimony of Leonard Busher, 
 1 6 14, with regard to the definition of baptism as being immer- 
 sion, and also Dr. Featley's tract, " The Dippers Dipt," as prov- 
 ing that immersion was practiced by some of the Baptists before 
 1 64 1 ; but even he concedes that some of them practiced affusion 
 before that date, and that John Smyth's self-baptism was affusion, 
 though he is not certain of the fact. (Hist. Baptists, pp. 439, 
 440.) The case of Leonard Busher furnishes the only argument 
 that presents a difficulty in the way of the present thesis ; but in 
 the light of so much strong testimony which favors the view that 
 the English Anabaptists did not immerse before 1641, it must be 
 conceded that Leonard Busher must have stood alone in his view, 
 and was but a shining star that flashed across the black sky to 
 light up the way to the great movement of Blunt, 1640-41, who 
 came to the same conclusion that Busher did in 16 14, twenty-six 
 years before, and who put in practice among his brethren what 
 Busher could not or did not do. There is no other conclusion 
 to which we can come, with the light now shed before us by the 
 great balance of testimony presented by Hutchinson, Kiffin, 
 Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence, Barber, Collins, Crosby, Barclay, 
 Muller, Scheffer, Newman, Whitsitt, Vedder, Dexter and others ; 
 but of the Kiffin Manuscript or Jessey Records, which are in dis- 
 pute by some, we shall treat as evidence in the next chapter. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 tO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 THE SO-CALLED KIFFIN MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 The Kiffin Manuscript, so-called, is identical with that part of 
 the Jessey Records which include the origin of the Particular 
 Baptist Churches, the restoration of immersion and a list of the 
 signers of the Confession of 1644. In the collection of 17 12 it 
 is marked "Number 2 ; " and it is but part and parcel of the 
 Jessey Church Records from 1604 to 1645. Crosby quotes the 
 1633, 1638 parts of the Jessey Records and calls it the Kiffin 
 Manuscript; and if the 1633, 1638 parts ascribed by Crosby to 
 the Kiffin Manuscript are the Jessey Records, the 1639, 1640, 
 1641 parts so ascribed by him are also the Jessey Records, or an 
 abstract from them. Possibly the document, after Kiffin's 
 death, was found by Adams, his colleague, among his papers 
 and so received by Crosby as his manuscript from the collector; 
 but it is evident that Kiffin was not the original author of it by 
 reason of its identity with the Jessey Records. 
 
 Upon this document Crosby partly founds his history of the 
 restoration of immersion by the English Baptists, so far as the 
 first or "former method" is concerned. Pie uses the Hutchin- 
 son 'Account before this manuscript as the basis of his history, 
 but he gets the details out of the document. In fact, Crosby is 
 wholly indebted to the Jessey Church Records for the origin of 
 the first Particular Baptist Church founded in 1633-38; and it is 
 in view'of Crosby's use of this document as a whole that I wish 
 to examine it. It has been charged that he used the 1640-41 
 part indirectly as if to discredit it; but if so, he discredits the 
 whole of it. It has also been charged that the original docu- 
 ment as discovered and copied by Rev. Geo. Gould, of London, 
 and recently used by Dr. Whitsitt, is a forgery ; that Crosby 
 never saw it, but only saw some such document, the substance 
 of which he gives in history, and hence this particular manu- 
 
 9* 
 
$2 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 script is a forgery of "recent date," not more than forty years 
 old. 
 
 Now I wish to show that this manuscript, in its original form, 
 ascribed to Kiffin by Gould, who found it among the "Ex. MSS. 
 of Mr. Jessey," was before Crosby when he wrote his History 
 of the Baptists ; and I wish to say that if this document is a for- 
 gery then all the other documents discovered and copied by 
 Gould are forgeries, since they are all found together. Among 
 them is the Bampneld Document, No. 18, which I have verified 
 by the work of the author; and I am satisfied that I have found 
 confirmation sufficient in the writings of Jessey to identify him 
 as the author of this manuscript, or, at least, cognizant of the 
 facts it records. I shall here give a comparative collation of 
 what are designated as the Jessey Records, the Kiffin Manuscript 
 and Crosby's version for substance of these two documents which 
 are identically the same, with minor exception, under their re- 
 spective dates. 
 
 l6 33- 
 
 i. The Jessey Records. "1633. There having been much discuss- 
 ing, these denying Truth of ye Parish Churches & ye Church become now 
 so large yt it might be prejudicial, these following desired dismission that 
 they might become an Entire Church & further ye Communion of those 
 Churches in Order amongst themselves, wch at last was granted to them* 
 <S:'performed Sept. 12, 1 633, viz : Henry Parker & Wife, Widd Fearne. 
 . . . Hatmaker, Marke Luker, Mr Wilson Mary Wilson Thos Allen 
 Jo : Milburn. To these joined Rich. Blunt, Thos Hubert, Rich : Tred- 
 well & his wife Kath : John Trimber, Wm Jennings & Sam Eaton, Mary 
 Greenway, Mr Eaton with some others receiving a further baptism. 
 
 "Others joyned to them." 
 
 2. The Kiffin Manuscript. "1633. .Sundry of ye Church whereof 
 Air Jacob and Mr John Lathrop had been pastors, being dissatisfyed with 
 ye Churches owning of English Parishes, to be true Churches desired 
 dismission & joyned together among themselves, as Mr Henry Parker, Mr 
 Tho Shepard, Mr. Sam Eaton, Marke Luker, and others, with whom 
 joyned Mr. Wm Kiffin." f 
 
 *As already shown, this was an Independent secession with a few Anabap- 
 tists in its membership. It may be regarded at the time of the secession as a 
 mixed church of Anabaptists and independents, whatever it afterwards came 
 to be. 
 
 -j-This Record errs in placing Kiffin with the secession of 1633. 
 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. 93 
 
 3. Crosby's Version for Substance. (Vol. I., p. 148.) [1633.] 
 "There was a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters of the Independant 
 Persuasion in London, gathered in the year 1616, whereof Mr Henry 
 facob was the first pastor ; and after him succeeded Mr John Lathrop, who 
 was their minister at this time. In this society several persons, finding 
 that the congregation kept not to their first principles of separation, and 
 being also convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, 
 but such only as professed faith in Christ, desired that they might be dis- 
 missed from that communion, and allowed to form a distinct congregation, 
 in such order as was most agreeable to their own sentiment. 
 
 The church considering that they were now grown very numerous, 
 and so more than could in these times of persecution conveniently meet 
 together, and believing also that these persons acted from a principle of 
 conscience, and not obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they de- 
 sired, and that they should be constituted a distinct church ; which was 
 performed the 12th of Sept., 1633. And so they believed that baptism was 
 not rightly administered to infants, as they looked upon the baptism 
 they had received in that age as invalid : whereupon most or all of them 
 received a nezv baptism.* Their minister was Mr. John Spilsbury.f What 
 number they were is uncertain, because in the numbering of the names 
 of about twenty men and women, it is added with others.*'' 
 
 1638. 
 
 1. The Jessey Records. "1638. These also being of the same jitdg~- 
 ment with Sam Eaton and desiring to depart and not be censured, our in- 
 terest in them was remitted with prayer made in their behalfe June 
 18th 1638. They having first forsaken us & joyned with Mr Spils- 
 bury, viz Mr Peter Ferrer Hen Pen Tho : Wilson Wm Batty Mrs Allen 
 (died 1639) Mrs Norwood. 
 
 2. The Kiffin Manuscript. "1638. Mr Thomas Wilson, Mr Pen & $ 
 more being convinced that Baptism -a) as not for mf ants, but professed Believers, 
 joyned with Mr. Jo Spilsbury, ye Churches favor being desired therein." 
 
 3. Crosby's Version for Substance. (Vol. I., p. 149.) [1638]: "In 
 the year 1638, Mr. William Kiffin, J Mr. Thomas Wilson, and others, being 
 of the same judgment, were upon their request, dismissed to the said Mr. 
 Spilsbury 's congregation." 
 
 -The Records of 1633 say: "Mr. Eaton with some others receiving a further 
 baptism." 
 
 f The Records of 1633 make no mention of Mr. Spilsbury. 
 1 Kiffin is not mentioned in the 1638 Records. 
 
94 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 1639. 
 
 1. The Kiffin Manuscript. "1639. Mr. Green with Captn Spencer 
 had begun a Congregation in Crutched-Fryars, to whom Paul Hobson 
 joyned who was now with many of that Church one of ye Seven." 
 
 2. Crosby's Almost Literal Version. (Vol. I., p. 149.) [1639.] 
 "In the year 1639, another Congregation of Baptists* was found, whose 
 place of meeting was in Crutched-Fryars ; the chief promoters of which 
 were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobson, and Captain Spencer." 
 
 1640-1641. 
 
 1. The Kiffin Manuscript. "1640. 3rd Mo.: The Church became two 
 by mutual consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone^Zf ye other half e with 
 Mr. H.Jessey. Mr. Richard Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism 
 yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into ye Water, resembling 
 Burial & rising again. 2 Col. 2:12. Rom. 6:4 had sober conference about 
 it in ye Church, & then with some of the forenamed who also ware so con- 
 vinced. And after Prayer & Conferance about their so enjoying it, none 
 having then so practiced it in England to Professed Believers & hearing that 
 some in ye Netherlands had so practiced they agreed and sent over Mr. 
 Rich. Blunt (who understood Dutch) with letters of Commendation, and 
 who was kindly accepted there, and returned with letters from them Jo : 
 Batte a Teacher there and from that Church to such as sent him. 
 
 "1641. They proceed therein, viz Those Persons that ware persuaded 
 Baptism should be by dipping ye Body had met in two Companies, and 
 did intend so to meet after this, all these agreed to proceed alike togeather 
 And then Manifesting (not by any formal Words a Covenant) wch word 
 was scrupled by some of them, but by mutual desires and agreement each 
 testified : 
 
 "Those two Companyss did set apart one to Baptize the rest ; so it was 
 solemnly performed by them. 
 
 "Mr. Blunt Baptized Mr. Blacklock yt was a Teacher amongst them 
 & Mr. Blunt being baptized, he & Mr. Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their 
 friends that ware so minded, & many being added to them they increased 
 much. 
 
 •'The names of all 11 Mo. Janu : begin 
 
 1. Richard Blunt Sam Blacklock Tho. Shephard) 
 
 2. Greg Fishburn Doro. Fishburn his wife) 
 
 3. John Cadwell Eliz. Cadwell Mary Millison) 
 
 * The word "Baptists" is not in the original records and is added by Crosby. 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. 
 
 95 
 
 4. Sam Eames 
 
 Tho. Munden 
 
 
 5. Thos. Kilcop 
 
 6. Robert Locker 
 
 William Willieby 
 Mary Lock 
 
 
 7. John Braunson 
 
 8. Rich. Ellis 
 
 9. Wm Creak 
 10. Robert Carr 
 
 John Bull 
 Mary Langride 
 Mary Haman 
 Sarah Williams 
 
 
 11. Martin Mainprise 
 
 Joane) 
 
 )Dunckle 
 
 
 12. Henry Woolmare 
 
 15. Henry Creak 
 
 16. Mark Lukar 
 
 Anne) 
 
 Eliz. Woolmore 
 Judeth Manning 
 Mable Lukar 
 
 
 17. Henry Darker 
 
 13. Robert King 
 
 14. Thomas Waters 
 
 Abigal Bowden 
 Sarah Norman 
 Isabel W T oolmore 
 
 
 Ellis Jessop 
 
 Mary Kreak 
 Susanna King 
 41 in all 
 
 
 nth month 
 understood 
 
 n January 9 added 
 
 
 as appears 
 above : & 
 
 John Cattope 
 Nicholas Martin 
 
 George Wenham 
 Thomas Davenant 
 
 this was 
 Jan 9th 
 
 Allie Stanford 
 Nath Matthon 
 
 Rich. Colgrave 
 Eliz. Hutchinson 
 
 
 Mary Birch 
 
 John Croson 
 Sybilla Lees 
 John Woolmore 
 
 
 Thus 53 in all 
 
 
 2. Crosby's Version for Substance, including literal quota- 
 tions. [1640] (Vol. III., p. 41.) "For in the year 1640 this church be- 
 canie two by mutual consent ; just half, says the manuscript, being with Mr. P. 
 Barebone, and the other half with Mr. Henry Jessey." * ' This " [manuscript], 
 says Crosby (Vol. I., p. 101), "relates, that several sober and pious per- 
 sons belonging to the congregations of the dissenters about London were 
 convinced that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that 
 it otight to be administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body in water, 
 in 7-emembrance of a burial and resurrection, according to 2 Colos. ii:\2 and 
 
g6 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Rom. vi.:\. That they often met together to pray and confer about this mat- 
 ter, and consult what methods they should take to enjoy this ordinance in 
 its primitive purity : That they could not be satisfied about any administrator 
 in England to begin this practice ; because tho' some in this nation rejeeted the 
 baptism of infaitts, yet they had not as they knew of REVIVED the ancient 
 custom of immersion : But hearing that some in the Netherlands practiced 
 it, they agreed to send over one Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the 
 Dutch Language : That he went accordingly, carrying letters of recommenda- 
 tion with him, and was kindly received by the church there, and Mr. John 
 Batte, their teacher : That upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Black- 
 lock, a minister, and these two baptized the rest of their company, whose names 
 appear in the manuscript, to the number oi fifty -three." 
 
 The italics mark the almost literal quotations of Crosby from 
 the original Kiffin Manuscript, showing that the document was 
 then and there in existence as we now have it. 
 
 Now it is clear that the original MS., as ascribed to Jessey 
 (1633, 1638), and that ascribed to Kiffin (1633, 1638, 1639, 1640, 
 1 641), were before Crosby when he wrote his history. He took 
 his account of the origin of the first Particular Baptist Church and 
 the restoration of immersion directly from these documents, as a 
 comparison of his account with these original records will show. 
 
 1. As a rule Crosby took the liberty to quote substantially, 
 and, as he saw fit, to make corrections (which were mostly blun- 
 ders) by addition, substraction, or explication. He used the 
 Jessey Records and the Kiffin Manuscript as the same document 
 in his version of the secession of 1633; and in his marginal 
 note (Vol. I., p. 149) he refers the Kiffin MS. to the "Records 
 of that church," which were doubtless the Jessey MSS. On 
 page 41 (Vol. III.) he brackets the exact words of the. Kiffin 
 MS. (1633), "[with whom joined Mr. William Kiffin]" as if to 
 correct the mistake, since Kiffin never joined the 1633 secession, 
 nor any church at that time; and Crosby himself, by mistake, 
 puts Kiffin with Spilsbury in 1638, contrary to the later accounts 
 of Ivimey and Orme, who place him with Jessey at that date. 
 In the 1639 account Crosby follows the Kiffin MS. almost liter- 
 ally, except in adding the word "Baptist," which was another 
 blunder. In the 1640-41 section of the Kiffin MS., so-called, 
 Crosby combines the separate accounts of the two dates, which 
 almost literally correspond with the document. He omits the 
 date, 1 641, but incorporates the date 1640; and most of his 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. 97 
 
 transcript, after the 1640 quotation, is a somewhat literal detail 
 of the precise facts as related in the MS. There is absolutely no 
 essential difference between Crosby's indirect and the direct 
 statement of the document as to the matters of fact in the whole 
 section included under the 1640 and 1641 dates. 
 
 2. But the fact that the original documents, as we now have 
 them, were in Crosby's hands is more manifest by the literal and 
 direct quotations of sentences, phrases and words found in his 
 transcript. In Vol. III., p. 41, he quotes the very words from 
 the original manuscript: "For in the year 1640, this Church be- 
 came two by mutual consent; just half, says the manuscript, being 
 with Mr. P. Barebone, and the other half with Mr. Henry 
 Jessey"; and on the same page (41) he quotes verbatim the 
 bracketed clause, 1633 "[with whom joined William Kiffin]," 
 referring the clause to the "same manuscript." Over on page 42 
 (Vol. III.) Crosby continues to refer to this "same manuscript" 
 as including the 1638 and 1639 paragraphs, as in Vol. I., p. 149, 
 written by William Kiffin; and this identifies the 1633, 1638, 
 1639, 1640, 1 64 1 paragraphs of the original MS., ascribed to 
 Kiffin, as all belonging to one and the same manuscript, accord- 
 ing to Vol. III., pp. 41, 42. 
 
 In the remainder of the 1640-41 paragraphs of this MS. cited 
 (Vol. I., pp. 102, T03) Crosby closely follows Blunt's conviction 
 with others ("several sober and pious persons") that baptism 
 ought to be by dipping, according to Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12. He 
 mentions their frequent prayer and conference about how they 
 should "enjoy" the ordinance in its primitive purity. He para- 
 phrases the main sentence: "none having then so practiced it in 
 England to professed believers" so as to read: "they could not be 
 satisfied about any administrator in England to begin this prac- 
 tice;" and he gives a reason which makes his paraphrase stronger 
 than the original sentence: "Because tho' some [Anabaptists] in 
 this nation rejected the baptism of infants, yet they had not as 
 they knew of, revived the antient custom of immersion," which, 
 he says, "had for sometime been disused." He then details the 
 sending of Richard Blunt to the Netherlands, because he under- 
 stood Dutch and because some in the Netherlands had for some 
 time used immersion; and he particularizes his letters of intro- 
 duction, his kind reception by John Batte and the church, Blunt's 
 return, his baptism of Samuel Blacklock, a minister [teacher], 
 and closes with the fact that Blunt and Blacklock baptized the 
 
 7 
 
98 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 "rest of the company" to the number of "fifty-three," whose 
 names were "in the manuscript," just as we now have them, 
 showing that he quoted directly from the document; and the 
 strange part of it is that he did not put down the date, "11 Mo. 
 Janu., 1 641," for it was before his eyes! What a blunder! 
 Crosby's use here of the 1640 and the 1641 paragraphs of the 
 MS. is identified by his literal quotation of the first sentence of 
 the 1640 paragraph (Vol. III., p. 41); and this identification 
 with the other identification of the 1640 paragraph with the 1633, 
 1638 and 1639 paragraphs as belonging to the "same manuscript" 
 (Vol. III., pp. 41, 42), shows that the 1641 paragraph is simply 
 a part of the original document as a whole and as one and the 
 same MS. (1633, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641), though mentioned by 
 Crosby in separate sections and in different volumes. 
 
 Crosby leaves out nothing material to the 1641 paragraph 
 except the date, 1641; but since he elsewhere uses the 1640 
 date, at which the Blunt movement began and which was con- 
 summated upon his return, the omission of 1641 is not essential 
 because he minutely details all the facts which follow 1640 and 
 identify 1641. He is given to the neglect of dates in many 
 details of his history; but here, fortunately, his detail of facts 
 according to the order of the MS. establishes the date, 1641, at 
 which, by the first method, the Baptists of England restored 
 immersion. If Crosby omitted the date, 1641, he did not omit 
 the facts of 1641 ; and if the facts of this paragraph of the MS. 
 are valid history as he uses it, then the date 1641 is a valid fact 
 in history — confirmed by Hutchinson and by the larger body of 
 Baptists who at the same time Crosby says regarded Blunt' s dep- 
 utution to Holland as "needless trouble." The Bampfield 
 Document is another confirmation of the same fact, the caption 
 of which reads thus: "An Account of ye methods taken by ye 
 Baptists to obtain a proper Administration of Baptism by Im- 
 mersion when that practice had been so long disused, yt there 
 was no one who had so been baptized to be found." How strik- 
 ingly does the main sentence of the Kiffin MS. , "None having 
 then so practiced itin England to professed believers," correspond 
 with the like declaration of the Bampfield Document! 
 
 The expression: "Said to be written by William Kiffin" 
 (Crosby, I., p. 101,) does not indicate Crosby's discredit of the 
 authenticity whatever he may have thought of the authorship 
 of the MS. He uses this part of it as valid history confirmed 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. 99 
 
 by Hutchinson and others, just as he so regards elsewhere 
 the other parts of the document; and in Vol. I., p. 148, 
 where he quotes the 1633, 1638, 1639 pa/ts he speaks of the 
 citation as an "account collected from a manuscript of Mr. 
 William Kiffin," just as here he speaks of this (1640-41) para- 
 graph as "an account given of the matter in an ancient manu- 
 script said to be written by Mr. William Kiffin." The manu- 
 script referred to is the "same"; and so he calls it the "same 
 manuscript" in his literal references to the 1633 and 1640 para- 
 graphs (Vol. III., p. 41) and to the 1638 and 1639 paragraphs 
 on page 42 of the same volume. He means the same when he 
 speaks of the "manuscript of William Kiffin," that-he does when 
 he speaks of the "ancient manuscript said to be written by Wil- 
 liam Kiffin." W T hen he cites any of the paragraphs, he repre- 
 sents them as found in this "same manuscript"; and he does not 
 cite the 1640-41 section as a manuscript by itself — "another 
 manuscript said to be written by William Kiffin" — but as found 
 in the same "ancient manuscript," elsewhere identified as such. 
 Discredit one part and you discredit the whole MS. 
 
 It is objected that Crosby quotes the 1640-41 paragraphs 
 without quotation points — indirectly — and therefore implies his 
 doubt or caution as to its validity ; but he frequently so quotes 
 authentic documents, as in Vol. IV., pp. 169, 178, 181, 188, 
 197, 254, and in forty other places. He cites this section as 
 fully and accurately as he does any other part of the MS. , and 
 emphasizes and confirms it as history. More than this, he sig- 
 nalizes its authenticity by the fact that Kiffin, " said to be" its 
 author, "lived in those times [1640-41] and was a leader among 
 those of that persuasion ; " and he thus identifies Kiffin, the al- 
 leged author of the document, both with the date and the move- 
 ment of the MS. He specifies that whether Kiffin was the 
 author of it or not, he was connected with its movement and 
 times ; and Crosby shows that he has not the slightest doubt of 
 its historical validity. He makes not a single qualification of its 
 authenticity and confirms it by contemporaneous authority. The 
 164 1 date of the manuscript is thoroughly confirmed by Barebone, 
 in 1643, who dates Baptist dipping back " two or three yeares" 
 to its beginning in England. The same is true of Edwards, who 
 in 1646 includes among many other heresies Baptist " dipping" 
 as having originated in England within the "four years past." 
 So of Watts, in 1656, who dates the beginning of Baptist dippers 
 in England " about 13 or 14 yeare agoe." 
 
ioo English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Ivimey, Evans and Gould agree with Crosby in the trustwor- 
 thiness of this manuscript. Dexter is cited as "giving up the 
 manuscript," but this is untrue. He suggests that its genuine- 
 ness might be open to question and suspicious for its vagueness 
 but for Kiffin's connection with it, and for the reason that Wil- 
 son, Calamy, Brook and Neal know nothing of Blunt and Black- 
 lock outside of the MS. ; but he cites Edwards as discovering one 
 Blount (1646) at the head of a prominent Anabaptist Church, re- 
 fers to Barclay (Inner Life, p. 75) as having discovered John 
 Batten, who probably administered immersion to Blunt, and re- 
 gards Hutchinson as confirming Blunt's deputation to Holland 
 for a " proper administrator" of baptism. Prof. Rauschen- 
 busch, in a book entitled Geschiedenis der Rhynsburgische Ver- 
 gardering, also discovers Jan Batte, who was from the beginning 
 a prominent teacher in the Rhynsburger Congregation, and he 
 has no doubt of his having baptized Blunt. (17th ch. Hist. Bap- 
 tists, Baptist.) Hutchinson's account has been denied as show- 
 ing that the deputation to Holland involved the revival of dip- 
 ping ; but Crosby uses Hutchinson in confirmation of the MS. 
 for that very purpose ; and Hutchinson himself in his Treatise, 
 pp. 2-4, Epistle to the Reader, begins the paragraph quoted by 
 Crosby, thus: "Besides it [persecution] has a considerable ten- 
 dency to advancement of divine grace, if we consider the way 
 and manner of Reviving this costly truth**' — that is, baptism for 
 the "proper administrator" of which by immersion Blunt, 1640, 
 was deputed to Holland. The "reviving" of this ordinance is 
 the very thing about which, in this paragraph, Hutchinson was 
 writing. 
 
 Another strong confirmation of this Manuscript and its date, 
 by contemporaneous authority, is by John Taylor (A Swarme of 
 Sectaries, &c, 1641, London), who connects Spilsbury and 
 Eaton with the "new found Separation" — who represents Spils- 
 bury, "of late," as rising up to "rebaptize" Eaton in "Anabap- 
 tist fashion" — and who pictures Eaton as baptizing an "impure 
 dame" at the bankside of some stream. This was in 1641 ; and 
 it is distinctly stated in the Manuscript that Eaton was in the 
 1633 Secession from the Lathrop Church and clearly implied 
 that he was with Spilsbury in 1638. In 1633 "Eaton with some 
 others received a further baptism," that is, Anabaptist aspersion ; 
 but now "oflate," in 1641, he is rebaptized again by Spilsbury in 
 "Anabaptist fashion," which was now immersion, and which 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. ioi 
 
 Eaton proceeded immediately to practice upon an ' 'impure 
 dame." This record also confirms Crosby's account of restor- 
 ing immersion by the "last method," that is, by an unbaptized 
 administrator which Spilsbury advocated and which he here in- 
 troduced in 1641 — at the same time that the "first method" by 
 Blunt was introduced, by regular administration from Holland. 
 These facts are perfectly consistent with and thoroughly con- 
 firmatory of the account given in the so-called Kiffin Manuscript, 
 or the Jessey Records. 
 
 A final confirmation of the Kiffin Manuscript or Jessey 
 Records is found in the life and writings of Henry Jessey him- 
 self. In a work entitled, The Life and Death of Mr. Henry 
 Jessey, London, 1671, written by E. W., I find on page 9 the 
 following with regard to the division of the Jessey Church, 1640: 
 
 "Upon the 18th day of the third Month called May, 1640, they divided 
 themselves equally, and became two Congregations, the one whereof con- 
 tinued with Mr. Jessey, the other joyned themselves to Mr. Praise God Bare- 
 bone, each of the churches renewing their Covenant and choosing distinct 
 officers of their own from among themselves." 
 
 On page 83 the author says : 
 
 "In 1644. He held several debates with the Leaders of Several Con- 
 gregations, Concerning Pedo Baptisme,for he questioned whether it could 
 Be proved from Scripture that any others had right to that Ordinance 
 of the Sacrament, but such as can give account of their Faith in Christ, 
 and their answers not seeming to him Satisfactory ; He was (about Mid- 
 stcmmcr) the year [1645] following baptized by Mr. Knowles, though his 
 own Congregation at that time was most of them for Infant Baptisme." 
 
 This part of Jessey's history is substantially found in the so- 
 called Kiffin Manuscript, or Jessey Church Records. The 
 author does not mention the Blunt movement found in the same 
 connection j but as he was writing simply the life of Jessey, who 
 did not join with Blunt in his movement, except in conviction 
 and council, only that part of the history which immediately re- 
 lated to Jessey and Barebone is recorded. 
 
 In Jessey's own book (A Storehouse of Provision, &c, Lon- 
 don, 1650), on page 15, where he is discussing baptism as a lost 
 ordinance and the right to restore it, according to the Scriptures, 
 
102 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 he says: "Say not in thine heart, Who shall goe into Heaven, 
 or to sea, or beyond the Sea for it? but the word is nigh thee 
 (Rom. 10). So we need not goe for administrators to other 
 Countries, nor stay [wait] for them: but looke to the word." On 
 page 80, speaking of some believers who had been "slack," and 
 some who had "longed" to "enjoy" the ordinance after its intro- 
 duction, he says: "Such Considerations as these I have had, But 
 yet, because I would do nothing rashly; I would not do that 
 which I should renounce againe. I desired Conference with 
 some Christians differing therein in opinion from me; about what 
 is requisite to the restoring of ordinances, if lost; Especially 
 what is Essentiall in a Baptizer? Thus I did forbeare and in- 
 quired above a yeares space." 
 
 Now in all this it seems clear that Jessey alludes to the Blunt 
 idea of "going beyond the sea" — "to other countries" — for a 
 "proper administrator" of baptism, which Jessey regarded as 
 "needless." His difficulty was with the method of "restoring" 
 immersion as involved in the essential qualifications of a "Bap- 
 tizer," or "proper administrator"; and though convinced, after 
 the agitation of 1640-41, that immersion was Scriptural, he de- 
 layed baptism for several years — finally accepting the Spilsbury 
 theory of restoring the ordinance instead of the Blunt theory of 
 going "over sea" for it. All this is in accord with the Kiffin 
 Manuscript or Jessey Records and the history of the case; and 
 some of Jessey's expressions — such as the ordinance being "lost" 
 and going "beyond the sea" for "administrators" — those who 
 longed to "enjoy" the ordinance and did not "tarry" for it as he 
 did — what is "requisite to the restoring" of the ordinance, "espe- 
 cially what is essential in a Baptizer," or "proper administrator" 
 — corresponds with the substance of the Manuscript and to some 
 extent its phraseology. His delay "above a yeares space," that 
 is, from 1644 to 1645, after "Conference" with some who differed 
 from him about the burning question of Pedo-baptism, and his 
 subsequent immersion in 1645, is distinctly referred to in "No. 4," 
 of the Jessey Records, which mention the "Conferences" in the 
 Jessey church "about infant baptism by which Mr. Jessey and 
 the greatest part of the Congregation were proselyted to the 
 opinion of the Antipedobaptists." So does the history of Jessey, 
 by E, W. , involve this same event and confirm this No. 4 section 
 of the Jessey Records as stated in the caption of the Collector, 
 as he also confirms the 1640 division of the church between 
 
The So-called Kiffin Manuscript. 103 
 
 Jessey and Barebone. Now, if Jessey himself and his biographer 
 confirm the No. 4 section of the Jessey Records -in their detail 
 of the substance of the so-called Kiffin Manuscript — and partly 
 in the use of its phraseology — they also confirm the document 
 itself. Jessey unquestionably confirms the thesis of restoring 
 immersion, about 1640-41, by both methods, as detailed by 
 Crosby; and this for ever silences the charge that the Kiffin 
 Manuscript or the Jessey Records are a forgery. Jessey was one 
 of the chief actors in the drama of 1 640-1 645. 
 
 For a full account of "Document No. 4," as found in the 
 Jessey Church Records, I refer the reader to Crosby (Vol. I., 
 pp. 310, 311). He thoroughly confirms, as far as Jessey is con- 
 cerned, both the Kiffin document, "No. 2," and the document 
 "No. 4." In the Kiffin Document Blunt is represented as 
 being "convinced with him," that is with Jessey last named in 
 the connection of the sentence in which the fact is mentioned, 
 that "baptism ought to be by dipping," according to Col. 3:12 
 and Rom. 6:4 ; and Crosby shows that by repeated secessions 
 from Jessey's Church to the Baptists, especially the large seces- 
 sion in 1 641, Jessey was led to investigate the subject and be- 
 came convinced that immersion was baptism. In 1642 Jessey 
 proclaimed not only his conviction, but that "for the future" he 
 would practice immersion; and so from that time on he dipped 
 the children. Crosby then refers to the Conferences of 1644 in 
 which infant baptism became the question in controversy — 
 already begun in the church in 1643 — an d to the fact that when 
 Jessey was convinced that Pedobaptism was wrong he concluded 
 he ought himself to be immersed and was dipped in June, 
 1645, by Hanserd Knollys, who, with his wife, had been so 
 convinced and baptized a year before, when, after the contro- 
 versy about baptizing his own child had resulted in another 
 secession from the Jessey Church, he and his wife withdrew, 
 according to the No. 4 document. Here this document is thor- 
 oughly confirmed by Crosby, who clearly uses it, names and all, 
 so far as Jessey is concerned. See Appendix : Document No. 4. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1 641, A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE KIFFIN MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 Every effort has been made to discredit this document. It 
 has been assailed as an " anonymous paper," a "flying leaf," 
 without "a place of deposit" and without i( attestation " — as am- 
 biguous and contradictory — and yet those who have made this 
 criticism have sought to use the document, at the same time, as 
 evidence favoring another thesis. The most violent opposers of 
 the 1 641 thesis seeing that this criticism could not stand, have 
 adopted the theory of "forgery ; " and the world of literature has 
 been ransacked in search of proof to establish this theory. I 
 think I have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, established the 
 authenticity and validity of this document, in the light of history, 
 but I will here notice some of the objections made to prove it a 
 "forgery" ora " fraud." 
 
 John Lewis, 1738 and onward, is represented as repudiating 
 the Kifnn Manuscript and ridiculing Crosby for using it ; but be- 
 yond his hypothetical conjectures and unsustained assertions, he 
 gives no contemporary or other data by which to invalidate the 
 credibility of the document. Baptist history preceding and fol- 
 lowing 1640-41, according to contemporary authorities, thor- 
 oughly confirm the manuscript. 
 
 Armitage, Cathcart, Burrage, Newman and others have been 
 quoted as casting a shadow upon the genuineness and value of 
 this manuscript. Armitage simply says that the ' ' authorship of 
 the document is only guessed at ; " Cathcart says that " this trans- 
 action of Blunt may have happened" but that he would not 
 "bear heavily upon it;" Burrage says that the V testimony of 
 the Jessey Records may be genuine, but the genuineness has not 
 been established ; " Newman speaks of the obscurity of some of 
 the statements of the Kifhn Manuscript (in his History of the 
 Baptist Churches of the United States); but not one of these 
 
 104 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript. 105 
 
 authors denies the genuineness of these documents, much less do 
 they call them a "forgery." More recently, Dr. Newman, 
 after a thorough examination of these documents, says of the 
 Jessey Records: "The document in my opinion, bears every 
 mark of genuineness." (Review of the Question, p. 186.) 
 Including the Kiffin MS., he says again : 
 
 "These documents are all thoroughly consistent with each other and 
 with what is otherwise known of the history of the time in general and of 
 the Congregational and Baptist history in particular." [Ibid, p. 194.] 
 
 He says again : 
 
 "The value of these documents is in no way dependent on the correct- 
 ness of the supposition that they were written by Henry Jessey and Will- 
 iam Kiffin, respectively Some of Crosby's quotations are 
 
 not found in either of these documents in precisely the form in which he 
 has given them. This may be due to the fact that he dealt freely with 
 these documents, extracting and abstracting as suited his purpose ; or he 
 may have had before him a different recension of the same materials." 
 (Ibid, 196.) 
 
 Dr. Newman is a most thorough and competent investigator • 
 and no doubt the other authorities cited would be of the same 
 opinion with the same investigation. 
 
 It is objected that the Kiffin MS. is a forgery, since Kiffin to 
 whom the manuscript is ascribed is found among the signers of 
 the 1644 Confession, while Blunt and Blacklock, the leading 
 characters in the document, do not appear in the list. True, but 
 the manuscript is well authenticated by a list of the 53 persons 
 baptized by Blunt and Blacklock, from among whom are Shep- 
 ard [Skipard], Munden and Kilcop, who are in that group of 
 signers; and for aught we know Kiffin, who became a Baptist in 
 1641, " who lived in those times and was a leader among those 
 of that persuasion," was later in the year baptized by Blunt or 
 Blacklock. Mark Lucar was a prominent name not found 
 among the signers, yet in the list of 53 found in the MS.; but 
 this does not argue that the document was a forgery. It is 
 most likely that Blunt's church went to pieces before 1644, and 
 that may have been the reason why his name was not affixed to 
 the confession. In this connection it is boasted that Drs. Angus, 
 Clifford and other recent English Baptist historians do not men- 
 
106 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 tion the names of Blunt and Blacklock ; but they have done a 
 thing far more incredible in giving credence to the Epworth- 
 Crowle fraud, and in trying to build Baptist history upon tradi- 
 tions and fictions which have no historical foundation. Dr. Clif- 
 ford (The English Baptists, p. 19), however, refers to the Kiffm 
 account of the origin of the first Particular Baptist Church, which 
 can be taken only from the so-called Kiffm MS.; and if he can 
 take one section of the document, he can take the whole. 
 
 It is objected again that in 1640 the Jessey Church was not 
 an "ancient congregation;" that at that date "many of ye In- 
 dependent & Baptist Churches" had not "taken their rise" from 
 it; that the title "Baptist Churches" was not then in use; that 
 the word "antipedobaptism" was a later usage, &c: therefore 
 the Jessey Records are a forgery ! As well shown by Dr. New- 
 man, the Collector of 17 10-12, and not the manuscript writer, 
 was responsible for the title and heading of these Records, and 
 therefore the objection falls to the ground. 
 
 It has been objected also that "there is nothing in the Kiffm 
 MS. to prove that there were not other Baptists in England who 
 had nothing to do with this transaction; and Crosby (Vol. I., 
 p. 103) is cited in proof of the fact that there were such Bap- 
 tists, as follows : 
 
 "But the greatest number of the English Baptists looked upon all this as 
 needless trouble [sending Blunt to Holland], and what proceeded from the 
 old Popish Doctrine of right to administer the sacrament by an uninter- 
 rupted succession, &c." 
 
 The objector, however, did not explain that this "largest num- 
 ber of Baptists," according to Crosby, were only objecting to 
 the succession "method" of Blunt in restoring immersion, at 
 that very time, and the objector failed to continue Crosby's quo- 
 tation as follows : 
 
 "They [this largest number of Baptists] affirmed therefore, and prac- 
 ticed accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized 
 person might warrantably baptize and so begin a reformation." 
 
 Crosby calls the Blunt ' 'method" of restoring immersion the 
 "former" and the Spilsbury, or anti-succession, method adopted 
 by "the greatest number of the English Baptists," the "last 
 method ;" and so the whole quotation when put together is a 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript^ 107 
 
 complete confirmation of the manuscript in citing a contem- 
 poraneous and connected event which followed the Blunt move- 
 ment and which objected to it in express terms. 
 
 It has been urged that the voice of Kifhn himself is against 
 the so-called Kiffin Manuscript and the interpretation maintained 
 by this thesis. In 1645, among other queries, Poole propounded 
 the following to Kiffin : 
 
 "By what Scripture warrant doe you take upon you to erect new 
 framed Congregations, separated to the disturbance of the great Worke of 
 Reformation now in hand.'''' 
 
 Kiffin (Briefe Remonstrance, p. 6, 1645, London,) replies: 
 
 "It is well known to many and especially to ourselves, that our congre- 
 gations as they now are, were erected and framed, according to the rule of 
 Christ, before we heard of any Reformation, even at the time when 
 Episcopacie was at the height of its vanishing glory." 
 
 The allusion here is to the Westminster Movement from 1643 
 to 1649, which was (1645) "now in hand" as a Presbyterial 
 reformation of the English Church; and this is shown by Kiffin's 
 retort upon Poole (p. 7) in which he says : 
 
 "You tell us of a great Worke of Reformation, wee should entreat you 
 to show us wherein the greatnesse of it doth consist, for as yet we see no 
 greatnesse, unless it be in the vast expense [by the Assembly] of Money 
 and Time : for what greate thing is it to change Episcopacie into Presbytery , 
 and a Book of Common Prayer into a Directory, &c." 
 
 Without any controversy here as to the mode of baptism, 
 Kiffin simply affirms the organization of Baptist Churches, based 
 upon the principles of independency and believers' baptism, ac- 
 cording to the rule of Christ, before this Presbyterian Move- 
 ment began; and he fixes the date particularly: "even at the 
 time when Episcopacie was at the height of its vanishing glory," 
 that is, at the time "of ye revival of Antipedobaptism towards ye 
 latter end of ye Reign of King Charles ye First," as the Col- 
 lector of the Jessey and other Records put it in his caption of 
 the "Hutchinson account." This, according to Kiffin, puts the 
 beginning of Baptist churches in the neighborhood of 1641 : 
 and although Josiah Ricraft, in reply to Kiffin (A Looking 
 Glasse For Anabaptists, &c, pp. 6-8, 1645, London) doubtfully: 
 
io8 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 grants for the sake of argument that Kiffin's own church, 
 possibly, may have been erected before he heard of this Reforma- 
 tion, it does not imply that his church was organized before 
 1 64 1. Kiffin, as I shall show, became a Baptist in 1641 ; and 
 it is also clearly probable that he never was pastor of a church 
 before 1643. For a further discussion of the subject and for a 
 complete refutation of the objection that Kiffin's own writings in 
 any way militate against his so-called manuscript, I refer the 
 reader to my Chapter X., entitled William Kiffin. 
 
 The criticism which makes the ''collector" of 17 10-12 the 
 "forger" of the Jessey Records or the Kiffin Manuscript on ac- 
 count of his "spelling," or on account of the more modern 
 phraseology of his "captions," or on account of the errors in the 
 minor details of the documents, is extremely absurd. The col- 
 lector affirms that these Records, including the Kiffin Manu- 
 script, were received by him from Richard Adams, the colleague 
 and survivor of William Kiffin ; and while he says of his whole 
 collection that some of his documents were "original papers," 
 others were "faithful extracts." The transcript of the Jessey 
 Records which he received from Richard Adams is called the 
 "Ex-MSS. of Mr. Henry Jessey," and was evidently not the 
 original or exact draught of church minutes ; and it is possible 
 that they had passed through more than one recension from the 
 Original. So far as the spelling was concerned, this was com- 
 mon to some manuscript writings down through the 17th century; 
 and so far as the copying of the "collector" goes, as of the 
 Hutchinson Account and the Bampfield Document — if he was 
 the copyist — he is exceedingly "faithful" in his "extracts," with 
 the simple difference in the spelling. His more modern phrase- 
 ology in the caption and reference to Strypes Memorials (of 
 Cranmer) properly belonged to 17 10. His use of the word 
 "antient" (1710) with reference to the Jacob Church (1616) is in 
 keeping with Crosby and other writers of the time who.speak of 
 the early churches of the 17th century as "antient;" and his 
 application of the name "Baptist" to the Anabaptist Churches 
 prior to 1641 is in keeping with Crosby, Evans, Robinson and 
 others. It is a vicious perversion to charge the collector with 
 saying that "all the Baptist churches in London," or "the first 
 Baptist churches in England," took their rise from the Jacob 
 church. The caption of the Records only speaks of "many of 
 ye Independent & Baptist Churches in London" which "took 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript. 109. 
 
 their first rise" from this "Antient Congregation of Dissenters"— 
 all of which is true of the Spilsbury, Hobson, Jessey and other 
 Particular Baptist Churches springing out of these. So of the 
 Congregational Churches. This document does not include the 
 General Baptist churches already existent in London and other 
 parts of England since 161 1. The statement that the Baptists, 
 "intermixed" with the Independents, separated, 1633, and 
 formed churches of their own, is not the statement of the Records 
 or the Collector, but of Crosby ; and there is no evidence of 
 conflict between these Independents and Baptists, at that time, 
 sharing, as they did, a common persecution at the hands of the 
 Established Church. 
 
 The charge of forgery upon the collector of these Records, 
 because of minor errors in giving the titles and dates of two of 
 Jacob's books; in the time of his pastorate and the date of his 
 visit to Virginia; in the fact of his return to England and death 
 in London; in the interval between Jacob's and Lathrop's pas- 
 torates; in the arrests, trials and imprisonment of the members 
 of the church in 1632, involving a few mistakes regarding indi- 
 viduals, names and places — all this is straining out a gnat and 
 swallowing a camel in capricious and exaggerated criticism. 
 The Jessey Church Records embrace the history of Jacob from 
 1604 to 1624 and of the church from 1616 to 1645; an( ^ tnev 
 chronicle the main facts, from beginning to end, which no his- 
 torian disputes. History has followed these Records, not the 
 Records history; and there is no ground for the calumnious 
 charge of forgery upon the collector who gives or copies them 
 just as he received them from Adams. Even in the section crit- 
 icized the Records give the same general facts as cited by the 
 court and other records. Only a fact not material to the history 
 of the church, is left out or misconceived: Jacob's death in 
 London instead of Virginia, 1622 instead of 1624, an error, if 
 true, of the Oxford historian, of Neal and others, all of whom, 
 before and since the collector, must therefore be forgers ! The 
 slighter errors about a couple of names, individuals, or places 
 of imprisonment, in no way affect the general fact of the arrest, 
 trial and imprisonment of the members of the church in 1632; 
 and yet the whole thing is a forgery, and the collector, without 
 any conceivable reason, or assignable motive, is pronounced a 
 forger! According to the critic, he was too ignorant and stupid 
 to be a forger — and yet he was shrewdly appropriating history to 
 
no English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 his purpose ! It does seem that a forger would get the substan- 
 tial facts wrong and the minor details right — not vice versa. 
 
 The criticism that the 1633 secession from the Jacob Lathrop 
 Church could not have occurred in that year, since all those 
 named in the secession were in jail from 1632 to 1634, is without 
 proof. Only about 30 of the church seem to have been arrested 
 on this occasion ^1632, or remained in jail, and some of their 
 fellow-sufferers were converted in prison and " added to the 
 church " during that time. The secession of some 20 members 
 from the church, 1633, were not necessarily in jail; and if some 
 of them were they could have been "added to the church." 
 This was as true of Sam Eaton as others if he was in jail from 
 1632 to 1634. It is alleged that he was again in jail from 1636 
 to 1639 and died in the latter year; and it is charged that the 
 Jessey Church Records make him join Spilsbury and receive 
 "another baptism" in 1638. This is false, since the Records 
 show that another small secession from the Lathrop Church, in 
 
 1638, '■''being of the same opinio?i with Sam Eaton," joined Spils- 
 bury, then pastor of the 1633 secession, to which Eaton, already 
 rebaptized in 1633, belonged. If Eaton died in 1639 then there 
 is a contradiction between the court records and John Taylor, 
 who in 1 641 represents Spilsbury as "of late" rising up to re- 
 baptize Eaton by immersion and Eaton himself practicing the 
 same ordinance. This could not have been the rebaptism of 
 1633, when, with some others, he received "another baptism " — 
 especially if he was in jail; nor could he at that time and under 
 such conditions have been so practicing. Spilsbury was not in 
 the 1633 secession; and if he had been he could not have, in 
 those days, immersed Eaton or others in an English jail. It was 
 not then the "Anabaptist fashion" — even if it had been facil- 
 itated or allowed in jail. In view of Taylor's historical testimony 
 in 1641, there must be some mistake about Eaton's death in 
 
 1639. He speaks of a " late " matter, and could not have been 
 satirizing a dead man whom he joins with Spilsbury in terms 
 which indicate a very recent event and which classify both as be- 
 longing to the " new-found separation" that is, Baptist separation. 
 
 Evidently Taylor and the Jessey Church Records agree in as- 
 sociating Eaton with Spilsbury and both with the Baptist move- 
 ment of 1641 ; and if Taylor was not guilty of mistaken identity 
 Eaton was alive at that time. In the frequent arrests of so many 
 V heretiques" and in their trials and imprisonment it is just possi- 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript. in 
 
 ble that the court records were careless and sometimes mistaken 
 about names ; and it seems quite possible, too, that John Taylor, 
 a bitter enemy of the " sectaries," should be right in his confirma- 
 tion of the Jessey Church Records by his relation and classifica- 
 tion of Spilsbury and Eaton in the immersion movement of 1641. 
 Grant, however, that Eaton died in 1639 and that Spilsbury 
 neither immersed him, nor that he immersed others. Then it is 
 a case of mistaken identity as to Eaton, or else Taylor falsifies 
 the facts. We have no reason to suppose Taylor false in fact; 
 and we must conclude that in 1641 Spilsbury, of the " new-found 
 separation," rose up "of late" and rebaptized somebody by im- 
 mersion and set him to baptizing others — whom Taylor con- 
 founds with Eaton. Whether false in fact or mistaken in person 
 Taylor properly designates the "new-found separation" and in- 
 dicates the Baptist immersion movement, 1641, in perfect accord 
 with the Jessey Church Records — Spilsbury, at least, being 
 a prominent and initial factor m that movement according to the 
 history of the time. 
 
 The court records wholly separate Eaton from the Anabaptist 
 movement from 1633 to 1641 and associate him with the Lathrop 
 people down to the day of his alleged death. The Jessey Church 
 Records are charged with an utter perversion of his history in 
 relating him to the secession of 1633 or to Spilsbury in 1638. This 
 is the criticism offered in view of this supposed fact, according to 
 which he could not have been an Anabaptist receiving "another 
 baptism," nor have had any connection with the Anabaptist 
 movement whatever; but the joint testimony of Taylor with the 
 Jessey Church Records shows that there must be a mistake in 
 such a conclusion. Even, however, if we leave Eaton wholly 
 out of the case, it in no way affects the general and substantial 
 record of facts contained in the Jessey documents. Crosby does 
 not find it necessary to use Eaton in his account. 
 
 The objection that the secession of 1633 was not caused by 
 "dissatisfaction" with the "Parish Churches" is based upon 
 ignorance of the facts. In the Confession of the Jacob Church, 
 1616 (Hanbury's Memorials, Vol. I., p. 297), the church never 
 declined, in some particulars, to withdraw fully from the "Parish 
 Churches." They still recognized "the truth of the Parish 
 Churches" in preaching and communion ; and this led some of 
 them to have their children baptized in the "Parish Churches," 
 which was regarded by others as not keeping their "first estate." 
 
ii2 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The Covenant of 1630 was a compromise measure which still 
 did not satisfy some who objected to the "truth of the Parish 
 Churches;" and on this account they withdrew, 1633, that they 
 might have communion with those Independent churches which 
 were "in order" and did not "communicate" with the "Parish 
 Churches." A part of this 1633 secession were Anabaptists, 
 which seems finally to have led it to Baptist position, or at least 
 into mixed church membership and communion, under Spils- 
 bury, who was pastor in 1638. The fact of this "dissatisfaction" 
 with the "Parish Churches," as a cause of separation in 1633, is 
 the basis of Particular Baptist Church "beginning" in England; 
 and no fact established by the Jessey Church Records is a better 
 confirmation of their truthfulness. 
 
 The objection that these Records are a "forgery" because of 
 the use of the apostrophic " 's " is so microscopically absurd 
 that it scarcely needs to be noticed. Williston Walker's work 
 (Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, pp. 90, 155, &c, 
 New York, 1893) gives instances of its use from 161 7 to 1647. 
 
 It has never been denied that some minor errors have crept 
 into these Records ; but the history of the time shows that the 
 main facts are correctly stated. There can be no doubt about 
 the 1633, 1638, 1639 secessions; the 1640 division of Jessey's 
 Church; the 1640-41 movement for immersion; the 1643 an d 
 1644 "Conferences;" the 1644 list of signers to the Confession; 
 the final transition of the Jessey Church to the Baptists in 1645. 
 These Records are not all exact minutes of the church as kept 
 by a regular secretary, but they are made up of fragments and 
 recollections by Jessey and others as gathered in after years — so 
 indicated by reference to past and present events at the time of 
 writing down the facts in the Records. The minor discrepan- 
 cies between these and other records regarding dates may often 
 arise from the difference between the Puritans and others in the 
 chronologies and calendars of that period — Old Style and New 
 Style. Errors in exact dates, names and places may be accounted 
 for upon the ground that every minor fact was not regularly or 
 accurately chronicled, or not precisely recalled by those in after 
 years who sought to gather up the facts of Baptist history which 
 before the close of the 17th century became a matter of interest 
 to the Baptists. Again errors in detail may be accounted for by 
 transcription and transmission. The collector of 17 10-12 gave 
 us these Jessey Church Records from 1604 to 1645 just as he 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript. 113 
 
 received or copied them from the venerable Richard Adams; 
 and if he gave them their captions or orthography, he never 
 changed their form or substance. He was unquestionably a 
 Baptist receiving these Records from a Baptist and for the pur- 
 pose of Baptist history. Whether it was Benjamin Stinton who 
 collected materials for a Baptist history, and who died in 17 18, 
 I know not. Crosby puts Stinton's ' 'introduction" in the Preface 
 of his first volume, and doubtless had Stinton's collection ; and 
 in Crosby's collection we find the Jessey Church Records, in- 
 cluding the Kiffin Manuscript, which he "lent" to Neal, and all 
 of which he used in his history of the Baptists as perfectly re- 
 liable testimony. 
 
 These Records are said to be "anonymous," but not more so 
 than the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 fits no more closely to the Gospel than these Records to the 
 Congregational and Baptist history of the time. The Bible re- 
 veals interpolations and variations, ellipses and anachronisms, 
 but only infidels reject it on that account; and there would be 
 much of the Bible and history destroyed if the principles of 
 criticism applied to the Jessey Church Records were applied to 
 them. 
 
 Even if these Records were a forgery, the Blunt movement a 
 myth and the date, 1641, not distinctly stated, the immersion 
 "revival" about that time, is demonstrated in the controversial 
 literature of the period. The Blunt movement, which the Jessey 
 Church Records describe, and which Crosby says the great 
 Baptist body, at the same time, repudiated as "needless trouble" 
 in view of their own "method of revival," was in itself a small 
 affair and went to nothing. The great contemporaneous move- 
 ment of the "greatest number" of the "English Baptists" is the 
 fact revealed in the literature of the period ; and the chief value 
 of these Records lies in fixing the date and showing the agita- 
 tion which resulted in the change of the Anabaptists of 1641 to 
 immersion — confirmed especially by Hutchinson (1676). These 
 Records, however, are neither a forgery nor a fiction ; and they 
 will never down before the silly and captious criticism of those 
 who claim no theory to advance, yet go stalking these Records 
 through the literature of the 17th century to discover, if possi- 
 ble, the vain hope of discrediting their testimony in favor of the 
 unprovable and impossible doctrine of visible Baptist Church 
 Succession. But these Records stand, like Gibraltar, invulner- 
 
ii4 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 able to criticism ; and, in conclusion, their confirmation may be 
 thus summarized : 
 
 i. John Taylor, 1641, connects Spilsbury and Eaton accord- 
 ing to their association in the Jessey Church Records, and shows 
 their introduction of immersion in 1641. 
 
 2. R. B., 1642, affirms that until lately "there were no bap- 
 tized persons (immersionists) in the world." 
 
 3. Spilsbury, 1642, characterized "dipping" as the "old," but 
 "new found, way." 
 
 4. Barebone, 1643, gives the age of the "totall dippers" of 
 England as "two or three yeares old, or some such short time." 
 
 5. Corn well, 1645, claims that the Baptists under the "dis- 
 covery" and "commandment" of Christ had resumed "dipping." 
 
 6. Henry Denne, 1645, ca ^ s tne delivery of the doctrine of 
 baptism by the church a "newborn babe" 
 
 7. Edwards, 1646, puts the origin of "dipping" among the 
 English Baptists within the "four years past." 
 
 8. Jessey, 1650, confirms the substance of the Kiffin Manu- 
 script, in its 1640-41 paragraphs by an evident reference to 
 Blunt "going over the sea" for baptism; and he also confirms 
 the "No. 4" document of the Jessey Records. 
 
 9. Kaye, 1653, asks and answers the question : "How comes 
 it to pass that this doctrine of baptism [dipping] hath not been 
 before revealed?" 
 
 10. Watts, 1656, points back "13 or 14 yeare agoe" as the 
 date at which the English Baptists began to immerse. 
 
 11. The biographer of Jessey, 1671, distinctly mentions the 
 
 1640 division of Jessey' s Church and the facts embraced in the 
 "No. 4" document, both contained in the Jessey Church 
 Records. 
 
 12. Hutchinson, 1676, directly points out the deputation to 
 Holland for a "proper administrator" in "reviving" the "truth" 
 -of immersion first received from Holland. 
 
 13. The Bampfield Document, 1681, and the Kiffin Manu- 
 script agree in the statement that immersion in England had been 
 "disused" and that up to the time of its revival by the Baptists 
 there "were none" who had so practiced to be found — the date 
 
 1 641 being fixed by the Kiffin Manuscript. 
 
 14. All the other writers of the 17th century, who touch the 
 subject, imply the recent introduction of immersion by the Bap- 
 tists of England, about the year 1641. 
 
Objections to the Kiffin Manuscript. 115 
 
 15. Crosby, 1738, declares that before its restoration by the 
 Baptists of England, "immersion had for some time been dis- 
 used"; and he evidently adopted the statements of both the 
 Kiffin and the Bampneld documents and implied the 1641 date 
 of the former, according to the facts. 
 
 16. I vimey, 181 1, though not certain of the date, and disposed 
 to dodge the issue, confirms the 1641 restoration, according to 
 the Jessey Church Records. 
 
 17. Geo. Gould, i860, (Open Communion) recognizes the 
 Kiffin MS. and Jessey Records as we now have them as valid 
 documents. 
 
 18. Evans, 1864, clearly agrees with Crosby and Ivimey in 
 the credibility of these documents and the fact of restoring im- 
 mersion by the Baptists, 1640-41. 
 
 19. Barclay, 187 1, and Rauschenbusch, 1899, f uuv mdentify 
 John Batte as the "teacher" who immersed Blunt. 
 
 20. Dr. A. H. Newman, 1897, a competent and thorough — 
 a scholarly — investigator, declares that the Jessey Records (in- 
 cluding the Kiffin MS.) "bear every mark of genuineness" and 
 "are thoroughly consistent with each other." 
 
 For further answers to objections to the Jessey Records and 
 Kiffin MS., see Appendix at the close of this work. 
 
 Such a confirmation of the Jessey Church Records ought to 
 suffice against the captious objections which seem to be on the 
 still hunt for criticism instead of true history ; and I claim that 
 this discussion, from beginning to end, is consistent with the his- 
 tory of the case. The writers cited, with the exception of the 
 Baptist historian, Crosby, and those following down to the pres- 
 ent time, all belong to the 17th century; and these last base their 
 conclusions upon the 17th century documents. The Jessey 
 Church Records are, beyond question, an old 17th century doc- 
 ument, perfectly consistent with and thoroughly confirmed by 
 the 17th century history here cited. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164 1 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 WILLIAM KIFFIN. 
 
 On account of being the alleged author of the so-called Kiffin 
 Manuscript and of his reputed connection with the Blunt move- 
 ment for the restoration of immersion, 1640-41 — and because it 
 has been confidently asserted that he was an immersionist before 
 1 64 1, and that his writings contradict the thesis of the restoration 
 of immersion at that date — I have thought it proper to devote 
 this chapter to William Kiffin. Crosby says (Vol. I., p. 101), in 
 the use of the Kiffin Manuscript, that he ''lived in those times, 
 and was a leader among those of that persuasion" — those, I sup- 
 pose, to whom the document refers, i. e. , Blunt and others who 
 originated the regular baptism and administrator-theory of restora- 
 tion. Kiffin gives no account of himself becoming a Baptist; 
 but from his own and che writings of others we may infer how, 
 why and when he became such — the inference being clear that 
 he reached Baptist conclusion at the time Blunt and his party re- 
 stored immersion in 1641, and that he was of the Particular, 
 close-communion, if not regular "persuasion." 
 
 It is said in the 1633 date of the document ascribed to Kiffin 
 that he went out with the first secession from the Jacob Lathrop 
 Church, but this is an unaccountable error which crept into the 
 records and which indicates that Kiffin was not the author of them. 
 Crosby, in his version of the records, places Kiffin, 1638, with 
 Spilsbury — another mistake, in which Ivimey at first followed 
 Crosby, and so of others repeatedly since that time. According 
 to Kiffin himself (Ivimey, Vol. II., p. 297; Orme's Life of Kiffin, 
 p. 14), he joined, in 1638, when 22 years of age, an Independ- 
 ent congregation not Spilsbury's as the sequel shows. Orme 
 {ibid, p. 115, Note XXI.) says of Mr. Jessey : "He was pastor 
 of the Independent Church of which Kiffin was a member, and 
 changed his sentiments some time after Kiffin left it." This set- 
 
 116 
 
William Kiffin. 117 
 
 ties the fact that Kiffin, who was born 161 6, and who joined the 
 Jessey Church when 22 years of age, that is, in 1638, was not in 
 the secession of 1633, nor was a member of Spilbury's Church 
 in 1638. 
 
 The probability is that Kiffin became a Baptist and was im- 
 mersed in 1641. Gould is the first who logically draws this in- 
 ference (Close Communion, pp. cxxvii., cxxviii. , cxxix.) from 
 Kiffin's ' 'Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion," p. 
 1, London, 1681, in which he says : 
 
 " I used all endeavors . . . that I might be directed in a right way 
 to worship ; and after some time concluded that the safest way was to fol- 
 low the footsteps of the flock, namely, that order laid down by Christ and 
 his apostles, and practiced by the primitive Christians in their times, 
 which I found to be that, after conversion, they were baptized, and added 
 to the church, and continued in the Apostles' doctrine, fellowship, break- 
 ing of bread and prayer, according to which I thought myself conformable, 
 and have continued in the profession of the same for these forty years.'''' 
 
 Forty years subtracted from 1681, the year in which he wrote 
 his Sober Discourse, leaves 1641, the year in which he became a 
 Baptist. The year 1641 is the date which the Jessey Church 
 Records assign to the immersion of the fifty-three members of 
 the Jessey and Spilsbury churches by Blunt and Blacklock — the 
 year in which, according to Crosby (Vol. I., p. 310), " a much 
 greater number" than before withdrew from the Jessey Church 
 of which Kiffin must have then been a member ; and although 
 his name does not appear in the fifty-three baptized up to Jan. 9, 
 1 641, he must have been baptized soon after that date in the 
 same year, as the number continued to be "added to" and "in- 
 creased much." At all events Kiffin with some others appears, 
 Oct. 17, 1642, in a controversy with Dr. Featley at Southwark, 
 in which he is seen to be a full-fledged Baptist. By his own 
 showing in 1681, when 40 years a Baptist, his immersion must 
 have taken place in 1641, when 25 years of age. 
 
 Ivimey represents Kiffin as leaving the Jessey Church in 1638 
 and joining Spilsbury, and soon after separating from Spilsbury 
 and his people on the occasion of a dispute about "the propriety 
 of suffering ministers to preach among them who had not been 
 baptized by immersion." Mr. Kiffin, says he, "was at the head 
 of those who opposed this principle, and an amicable secession 
 
u8 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 took place, it is supposed soon after 1640, when the church, which 
 still assembles in Devonshire Square, was founded, and he be- 
 came their pastor." (Ivimey, Vol. II., p. 297.) Ivimey's ac- 
 count of this matter was evidently drawn from Crosby (Vol. III. , 
 pp. 3, 4), in which he speaks of "Mr. William Kiffin, minister 
 to a Baptist congregation in Devonshire Square, London." He 
 says: 
 
 " He was first of an Independant congregation, and called to the min- 
 istry among them ; was one of those who were concerned in the confer- 
 ences held in the congregation of Mr. Henry Jessey ; by which Mr. Jessey 
 and the greatest part of the congregation became proselyted to the opin- 
 ion of the Baptists. He joined himself to the church of Mr. John Spils- 
 bury ; but a difference arising about permitting persons to preach amongst 
 them, that had not been baptized by immersion, they parted by consent, 
 yet kept a good correspondence." 
 
 It will be seen here that Crosby gives no dates, and while he 
 represents Kiffin as being pastor of the Devonshire Square Bap- 
 tist Church, in London, he says nothing about the time when 
 Kiffin became pastor, nor does he intimate that Kiffin founded 
 it at any date. More than this, the incident of separation by 
 Kiffin from Spilsbury's church, on account of pulpit affiliation 
 with unimmersed preachers, takes place, according to Crosby, after 
 the mention of certain Conferences in the congregation of Mr. 
 Jessey, in which Kiffin was "one of those who were convinced," 
 and by which the greater part of Mr. Jessey's congregation with 
 himself were "proselyted to the opinion of the Baptists." 
 Now the "Conferences" mentioned by Crosby, and which were 
 held in Mr. Jessey's Church, occurred early in 1644, according 
 to an old MS., supposed to have been written by Mr. Jessey 
 himself (Gould, Open Communion, p. cxxx.; Review of the 
 Question, Newman, p. 193.) (See also Jessey Records.) Pre- 
 ceding these Conferences, or among them, was the controversy 
 in the Jessey Church, 1643, concerning the baptism of Hanserd 
 Knollys' child, in which Kiffin was "one of those concerned." 
 (Gould, Open Communion, p. cxxix.) Orme, as already quoted, 
 says that Kiffin was a member of Mr. Jessey's Church, and that 
 Jessey "changed his sentiment sometime after Kiffin left it;" 
 and it is agreed on all hands that Kiffin joined Spilsbury for a 
 short time after leaving Jessey. If according to Crosby's notice 
 
 
William Kiffin. 119 
 
 of this fact he joined Spilsbury after the above Conferences, in 
 which he was one of those concerned, then he left Jessey late 
 in 1643 or early in 1644, and not in 1638, as Ivimey first stated 
 the matter. Gould says : 
 
 "It is worthy of remark that Crosby does not give us any account of 
 the duration of Kiffin's membership in this [Spilsbury's] church ; and his 
 words are clearly compatible with a very brief connection. I am led to 
 the conclusion that such was the case. The 'Confession of Faith . . . 
 Printed in the yeare of our Lord, 1644 ' [and published Oct. 16] was 
 signed by Kiffin and Patience as the representatives of one of the seven 
 Congregations in London, which agreed in that Confession. Between the 
 months of May and October, therefore, in the year 1644, Kiffin had 
 ceased to be a member of Mr. Jessey's church, had also connected himself 
 with and had then withdrawn from Mr. Spilsbury's Church, and there- 
 upon in conjunction with Mr. Patience, had organized a new Congrega- 
 tion." (Gould, Open Communion, p. cxxxi.) 
 
 It is noteworthy also that Ivimey, at a later date, changed his 
 view of this subject. He says (Life of Kiffin, p. 17) : 
 
 ''About the year 1653, he [Kiffin] left Mr. Spilsbury, and became the 
 pastor of a Baptist Church, which for many years met in Fisher's Folly, 
 now Devonshire Square." 
 
 On this passage Gould says : 
 
 "This is the latest form in which Mr. Ivimey has stated his conclusions 
 as to the date of the formation of this Church. In 1814, when he pub- 
 lished Vol. II. of his History of the English Baptists, he '■supposed'' that it 
 [the Devonshire Square Church] was founded 'soon after 1640' (p. 297). 
 Of course his supposition was incorrect, as Kiffin was not a Baptist at that 
 date. The loss of the original Church Book of this congregation forbids 
 the hope of unravelling its early history." (Open Communion, p. cxxxi.) 
 
 Gould further observes : 
 
 "If this statement is to be understood as meaning that Kiffin, for the 
 first time, organized a Baptist Congregation, it is certainly incorrect, as 
 the Confession of 1644 proves: if it means that in 1653 Kiffin organized 
 a new Congregation, I think it may be true, because it would reconcile 
 statements as to his history which, otherwise, are difficult to harmonize ; 
 but if it asserts that the church thus formed did, from that time forward, 
 meet in Devonshire Square, Ivimey is, as usual, not to be relied upon." 
 
120 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 In the Lambeth Records (DCXXXIX., fo. 219 b.) Gould dis- 
 covers in the "return made to Archbishop Sheldon, by the 
 Bishop of London, in 1669, of the Conventicles in the Diocese 
 of London," that there is no mention of Fisher's Folly, or 
 Devonshire Square ; and that the only entry in the "return" in 
 relation to Kiffin is that he was "preacher" or "teacher" in 
 "Finsbury's Court over against the Artillery Ground in More- 
 field" — or Bunhill Field. (Open Communion, p. cxxxii.) 
 
 If according to Ivimey's latest view, Kiffin was not pastor of 
 Devonshire Square Baptist Church in 1644, nor founded it in 
 1640 as he "supposed" at first, he may be still mistaken as to 
 1653. Taking the facts of history as we find them, it is prob- 
 able that Kiffin left Jessey late in 1643 ; na( ^ a short connection 
 with Spilsbury early in 1644; united with Patient (whose name 
 is joined with Kiffin's among the signers of the Confession as 
 from the same church) in another organization later in 1644; 
 and that afterwards, in 1653, or after 1669, he became pastor of 
 Devonshire Square Baptist Church. The early records of the 
 church having been lost, Kiffin's early connection with that 
 church is largely traditional. At all events he did not leave Spils- 
 bury in 1638, nor formed the Devonshire Square Baptist Church, 
 "near 1640," as Ivimey first "supposed;" and it is clear that 
 his contention with Spilsbury about pulpit affiliation with the un- 
 immersed happened, if it ever occurred at all, after 1641. No 
 such question was ever sprung among Baptists in England be- 
 fore 1641, so far as one can judge from the history of the times; 
 and it may be only traditional that it happened after 1641 — 
 although it was possible with a man of Kiffin's views on pulpit 
 affiliation and close communion at a later date. He was the 
 "patriarch of Strict Communion Baptists," as Gould nobly styles 
 him; but just when he became such cannot be definitely ascer- 
 tained. He must have reached that position after 1643, for it 
 seems impossible to separate him from the Jessey Church, though 
 a Baptist, before that date. In 1643, according to Orme's Life 
 of Kiffin (p. 22), after a return from Holland, Kiffin retired from 
 his lucrative business, for a time, and devoted himself to the 
 "study of God's word," being "greatly pressed," he says, "by 
 the people with whom I was a member to continue with them" — 
 evidently meaning the Jessey people with whom he had been 
 associated since 1638. He was not a pastor at this time of any 
 church, but only a "member," though doubtless he had been 
 
William Kiffin. 121 
 
 exercising his gifts as a preacher and a disputant before this. 
 According to Crosby (Vol. III., pp. 3, 4) he had been called to 
 the ministry by the Independent Congregation to which he be- 
 longed before becoming a Baptist ; and no doubt, on becoming 
 a Baptist he continued in the work of the ministry without cessa- 
 tion of his office. 
 
 These facts of history clearly put to silence the assumption 
 which has been so vigorously pressed, that Kiffin was immersed 
 before 1641 — the proof of which depended upon his separation 
 from Spilsbury, 1638, on account of the latter's pulpit affiliation 
 with the unimmersed. The fact of such separation, without the 
 date, was recorded by Crosby and chronologically misplaced by 
 Ivimey; but we have seen that Ivimey and Orme correct this 
 mistake at a later date, and that, as Kiffin's Sober Discourse 
 shows, he could not have been a Baptist before 1641. Like the 
 rest of the Baptists of his time, he regarded adult immersion as 
 having been lost in the great apostasy, and restored by the Bap- 
 tists ; and in his argument for close communion based upon pre- 
 cedent baptism (Sober Discourse, p. 16) he says: 
 
 "For if it be once admitted that it [baptism] is not necessary to Church 
 Communion, every Man of Sence will infer, That our Contention for it 
 were frivolous, our Separation Schismatical, &c." 
 
 Again he says {ibid, p. 58) : 
 
 "And if the first churches might not be constituted without this Ordi- 
 nance of Baptism, neither may those that succeed them, because the same 
 reason that made Baptism necessary then, makes it also necessary to us. 
 For Gospel Order settled by Apostolicall Authority & Direction, as this 
 was, hath not lost any of its native worth and efficacy, or obliging Vertue, 
 by any Disuse or Discontinuance occasioned by any, but ought to be the 
 same to us now, as it was to them in the beginning of such order, &c." 
 
 In his answer to Poole's querie : "By what warrant from the 
 Word of God do you separate from our congregations, where the 
 Word and Sacraments are purely dispensed ? " Kiffin replies 
 (Briefe Remonstrance, p. 6) that the Word and Sacraments 
 were not purely dispensed among their congregations, and when 
 they should be, he says : 
 
 "We (I hope) shall joyne with you in the same Congregation and Fel- 
 lowship, and nothing shall separate us but death, but till then we shall 
 
122 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 continue our separation from you, according to the light we have re- 
 ceived." 
 
 In reply to the charge of disturbing the " Reformation now in 
 hand," he says {ibid, p. 7) : 
 
 "I know not what you meane by this charge, unless it be to discover 
 your prejudice against us, in Refon?nng ourselves before you" — 
 
 that is, before the Presbyterian movement, 1643-49, was finished. 
 In reply to Poole's charge that he received from their congrega- 
 tions "silly seduced servants, children or people," Kiffin replies 
 (ibid, p. 10) : 
 
 "We answer, it is well known to you, we receive none as members with 
 us, but such as have been members of your church at least sixteen, 
 twenty or thirty years." 
 
 In reply to the charge of Schism (ibid, p. 13) Kiffin says: 
 
 "Now for our part, we desire all and every one of these amongst you 
 to be true and therefore do separate from you ; so then when you have 
 made satisfaction for yotir notorious schisme, and return as dutiful sonnes 
 to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthy Rubbish of her 
 abominations, which are found among you, we will return to you, or show 
 our just grounds to the contrary." 
 
 Thus Kiffin acknowledges that he and his church were Sepa- 
 ratists from the Pedobaptist reformers; and he promises to 
 "return" when they relinquish the filthy abominations of their 
 separation from Episcopacy or Romanism. The truth is that the 
 whole body of the Baptists of the 17th century were practically 
 Separatists. In 1641 and at the time Kiffin wrote his Briefe Re- 
 monstrance they were nothing but Separatists from the Puritans 
 and other Reformers — organically, to begin with, and by indi- 
 vidual additions in their continuance and growth, as Kiffin ac- 
 knowledges. There was not a Baptist preacher at that date, so 
 far as I have learned, who was an original Anabaptist ; and there 
 were but few if any such during the 17th century. Smyth, Hel- 
 wys, Morton, Spilsbury, Hobson, Kiffin, Knollys, Barber, Kilcop, 
 Ritor, R. B., Jessey, Tombes, Lamb, Oates, Collins and most if 
 not all the rest down to 1692 were sprinkled in infancy; and 
 this is a significant fact in proof of the entire Separatist origin of 
 
William Kiffin. i2£ 
 
 the English Baptists between 1611 and 1641 — and for some time 
 afterward. 
 
 Daniel King, 1649, wrote a book entitled, "A Way to Sion," 
 in which he shows that, notwithstanding the succession of faith 
 and of true believers, the visible church, ministry and ordinances 
 of Christ had been lost in the apostasy of Rome; that believers 
 had the right to recover the ordinances of Christ at any time 
 when moved to obedience; and that the true church, ministry 
 and ordinances of Christ had been recovered by the Baptists. 
 The Epistle Dedicatory to that book was written by Thomas Pa- 
 tient, John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and John Pearson, whose 
 names are signed to the document and who most vigorously 
 endorse and commend the book to the Baptists and the world. 
 He occupies the same position as shown in "Wall's Infant Bap- 
 tism from Heaven," 1692 (p. 22), in which Kiffin takes the cur- 
 rent Baptist view of his century, namely, "that the Apostles 
 did not Baptize as Apostles, but as Common-gifted Disciples," 
 upon which ground they repudiated the doctrine of succession, 
 and claimed the right to restore the church, ministry and ordi- 
 nances by unbaptized administrators raised up to teach and 
 therefore baptize. Wall arose to reply to Kiffin with the current 
 Pedobaptist argument of that century, based upon succession, 
 namely, "That the Commission, Matt. 28:20, was given to men 
 in office" — when Kiffin, Keachand others left the room ! 
 
 From all these quotations it is clear that Kiffin, though he 
 may have been immersed, 1641, by Blunt or Blacklock, yet like 
 Kilcop and others then baptized, he disclaimed succession and 
 did not regard the regular baptism from Holland as in the line 
 of succession. He held that baptism had been "disused" or '* dis- 
 continued" under the Romish Apostasy and that it had been re- 
 stored by the Baptists; he regarded the Baptists as Separatists 
 and Reformers upon a higher plane than the Puritans; he claims 
 that all the membership of his church, down to 1645, had been 
 received from the churches from which the Baptists had sepa- 
 rated; he pledges that when the schism from Rome had cut off 
 the abominations of its Mother, the Baptists would "return" to 
 the other Reformers; he endorses King's "Way to Sion," which 
 is the strongest vindication of the Baptist right to restore baptism 
 and which admits the fact that the Baptists had recovered Christ's 
 church, ministry and ordinances; and he preached the current 
 Baptist doctrine of the necessity of an unbaptized administrator 
 
124 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in order to begin the Baptist reformation. All efforts to prove 
 that Kiffin was a Baptist before 1641, or that his writings deny 
 the statements of the so-called Kiffin Manuscript, is a failure; and 
 so of any other Baptists in England — as claimed of Knollys, 
 Canne, Hobson, or Vavasor Powell — the latter of whom was an 
 Independent preacher in Wales and England from 1640 to 1655, 
 and who, according to Thurloe (Dictionary of National Biography, 
 Vol. XLVL, p. 250, British Museum), was, January 1, 1655, 
 "lately baptized and several others of his party." Kiffin has no 
 hesitation in claiming that the churches of some of the Baptists 
 were erected and framed, organized, as they were in 1645, ac_ 
 cording to the rule of Christ before the Presbyterian Reformation 
 11 then in hand" — when "Episcopacie was at the height df its 
 vanishing glory" — but he nowhere claims that immersion was in 
 practice before 1641. Believers' baptism, the basis of Anabap- 
 tist organization, had existed from 161 1 to 1641; but every im- 
 plication from Kiffin's writings is that he agreed with the Baptists 
 of his day, that immersion had been recently restored by the 
 Baptists of England. 
 
 One difficulty is to account for Kiffin's connection with Jessey 
 down to 1643, when he probably withdrew to Spilsbury on 
 account of the controversy originating out of the baptism of 
 Hanserd Knollys' child, and when sixteen others withdrew, at 
 that time, from the Jessey Church. It is probable, as already 
 suggested, that Kiffin's stricter views of communion and pulpit 
 affiliation were never developed until after this separation and his 
 union w r ith Spilbury, whenever that was, and it is probable there- 
 fore that although an immersed Baptist, he felt no scruples in 
 remaining from 1641 to 1643 w i tn Jessey. This had been the 
 custom of Baptists in principle before the secession of 1633 and 
 1638; and during this transition state from 1640 to 1645 it nia Y 
 have been the custom of Baptists in practice. Even when Kiffin 
 broke with Spilsbury's church, it is said that they "kept good 
 correspondence;" and perhaps this fraternal liberality, even at 
 that time, explains why Kiffin, before he grew into stricter 
 views, remained with Jessey down to 1643. Crosby seems to 
 regard Jessey's church as a Baptist Church in transition when 
 (Vol. III., p. 41) in his reply to Neal's statement he says: 
 "Thus it appears there were three Baptist churches in Eng- 
 land which Mr. Neal met with before that of Mr. Jessey's," 
 that is., in 1638. There is also much early correspondence, 
 
William Kiffin. 125 
 
 such as found in the records of the Hexham Church, which 
 shows the intimate fraternal regard held for the Jessey Church; 
 and hence, after all, it may not be strange that Kiffin and per- 
 haps many others of the immersed Baptists remained with 
 Jessey sometime before he and his entire church were fully pros- 
 elytized to Baptist opinion and practice. 
 
 The only difficulty which now remains is the identification of 
 Kiffin with the ancient manuscript ascribed to him. That docu- 
 ment is a part of the Jessey Church Records, and in the 
 collection of 171 2 is found with the "Ex-MSS. of Mr. Henry 
 Jessey." and apparently a part of those Jessey documents which 
 embrace the history of Mr. Jacob and his church from 1604 to 
 1645. O n tne basis of these records from 1633 to 1641, together 
 with such writers as Hutchinson, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence 
 and others, Crosby's whole account of the origin of the Par- 
 ticular Baptist Churches, and the restoration of immersion by 
 the Blunt Baptists rests. Dr. A. H. Newman (Review of the 
 Question, p. 185) says: 
 
 "On the basis of these [documents] the present writer, years ago, 
 reached the conclusion that immersion was introduced among English 
 Baptists in 1641, in entire independence, so far as I can remember, of the 
 considerations upon which Drs. Dexter and Whitsitt at first placed main 
 reliance. It appears that neither of these writers, 1880-81, when this 
 alleged discovery was independently made, was familiar with the quota- 
 tions from these Records made by Rev. George Gould in his Open Com- 
 munion of the Baptists of Norwich published in i860." 
 
 It is not a question, therefore, with scholarship, as to the 
 genuineness and value of these doctrines as corroborated by the 
 history of the times, but as to their authorship. I think there 
 can be no doubt of Jessey's authorship of these records ; and it 
 is probable that Kiffin had them, and turned them over to 
 Richard Adams, his co-pastor who survived him, and who 
 turned them over to the collector of these and other documents, 
 probably Benjamin Stinton, who left them to Crosby. Either 
 this or else he had a copy of these documents, or of that part of 
 them which related directly to the origin of the first Particular 
 Baptist Churches and the restoration of immersion by Blunt 
 and others; and, having been found among his papers by Adams> 
 was ascribed to Kiffin. 
 
126 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 As already seen, Kiffin and Jessey, from 1638 to 1643, were 
 associated in the same church, and both had some connection 
 with the immersion movement of 1640-41. According to 
 Crosby, Kiffin "lived in those times and was a leader among 
 those of that fiersuasio?i," and it was in this connection that 
 Crosby seems to ascribe to him the document called the "Kiffin 
 Manuscript," or that part of the Jessey Church Records which 
 relate to the events which occurred between 1633 an d 1641. 
 Kiffin, however, never mentions this document — nor does he 
 allude to his baptism, although he implies the year 1641 as the 
 date at which he became a Baptist. Jessey comes nearer allud- 
 ing to this document in his work, Storehouse of Provisions, &c, 
 1656 (p. 80), when speaking of those who had hesitated to en- 
 joy immersion, he says: "Such Considerations as these I had, 
 But yet, because I would do nothing rashly; I would not do 
 that which I would renounce againe ; I desired Conference with 
 some Christians differing therein in opinion from me; about 
 what is requisite to the restoring of ordinances, if lost; Espe- 
 cially what is Essentiall in a Baptizer. Thus I did forbeare and 
 inquired above a yeares space." The use of the word "Confer- 
 ence" found in the MS., the reference to the "restoring" of the 
 lost ordinance, and the question of an "essentiall Baptizer" — a 
 "proper administrator" — all savor of the Blunt movement and 
 the so-called Kiffin Manuscript, or the 1640-41 part of it; and 
 whether or not Jessey or Kiffin is the author of it, this passage 
 is a strong confirmation of the truth of the document. Kiffin 
 became a convert to immersion in 1641 ; and although Jessey 
 became convinced of its scripturalness, he delayed it after his 
 conviction for several years. It is somewhat natural for Crosby, 
 by reason of Kiffin's connection with this movement — of his 
 having "lived in those times" and of being of that "persua- 
 sion" — to have inclined to the view, apparently, that Kiffin was 
 the author of the document ; but Jessey's language in the above 
 quoted paragraph would indicate that he was the author of the 
 document. 
 
 Jessey like Kiffin, however, never mentions these records in 
 his writings. Many of the Baptist writers of that day, unlike 
 Jessey, Kiffin, Hutchinson, Tombes, Spilsbury, Lawrence, Bar- 
 ber, King and many others, do not allude to the restoration 
 of baptism — the great movement of 1641 ; but it must be re- 
 membered that the Baptists of that day were more concerned 
 
William Kiffin. 127 
 
 about their principles than their history. The great question 
 among them was that of believers' baptism rather than the 
 mode — whether or not they were Scriptural instead of being tra- 
 ditional ; and the gradually developed pride of denominational 
 antiquity had not then begun to look back to see how old it 
 was. Except as they were driven by controversy to touch 
 upon their origin, or history, or their recent introduction of im- 
 mersion, the Baptists said nothing of consequence on those 
 subjects; but they were zealously engaged in defending their 
 position from the Scriptures as the basis of their organization and 
 practice and as opposed to infant baptism and other innovations 
 of the Pedobaptist churches. When called upon to answer, they 
 had no hesitation in denouncing succession as a "mark of the 
 beast;" and they boasted of their separation and reformation 
 as based upon this restoration of the true church, ministry 
 and baptism of Christ. They called it " new," or rather a re- 
 turn to the "old; " and they thanked God that he had discov- 
 ered or revealed the old truth and the right way to them in 
 those " later times." Hence we hear of but little from Kif- 
 fin on these lines except his retort upon Poole that Baptist organ- 
 ization had preceded the reformation, 1645, ii then in hand" — 
 that Baptists were Separatists of a higher order, basing their con- 
 stitution on believers' baptism — and that they were reformers 
 upon this principle before the Puritan revolution — all of which 
 was true from John Smyth's movement, 1609, to that date, irre- 
 spective of the mode of baptism. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XL . 
 
 THE BAMPFIELD DOCUMENT. 
 
 This document throws a flood of light upon the period of Eng- 
 lish Baptist history now under discussion. I have selected it as 
 No. 18, from what is called : " A Repository of Divers Historical 
 Matters relating to English Antipedobaptists, collected from 
 original Papers or Faithful Extracts. Anno. 171 2." These 
 papers, among which are found the so-called Kiffin Manuscript 
 or Jessey Records, were copied by Rev. George Gould, of Lon- 
 don; and upon search for the original, I found Bampfield's book, 
 entitled Shem Acher, or the Historical Declaration of his Life, 
 London, 1681, pp. 38, which contains the extract found in the 
 collection. Document, No. 18, reads as follows : 
 
 " An Account (1) of ye Methods taken by ye Baptists to obtain a proper 
 Administrator of Baptism by Immersion, (2) when that practice had been so 
 long disused, yt there was no one who had been so baptized to be found, with 
 the Opinion of Henry Lawrence, Lord President, on ye Case. 
 
 " Mr. Francis Bampfield, in ye Historical Declaration of his Life, tells 
 us (pp. 15, 16, 17). That after he had been convinced, yt ye True Bap- 
 tism was by Immersion, & had resolved to be so baptized him selfe, he was 
 a long time in doubt about a fit administrator of it. Whereupon he set 
 himself to enquire diligently after ye first Administrator of Baptism by 
 Immersion, (3) since ye revival of yt practice in these latter times, wt account 
 he obtained of this matter he gives in the following words. Namely. 
 That being in London and making Enquiry there, his dissatisfaction grew 
 on ; for upon search being made concerning either a first, or after Admin- 
 istrator of this Ordinance ; He was informed either by, (4) printed Records, 
 or by Credible Witnesses, That ye Administrator was 
 
 " Either a Selfe (5) Baptizer : But he knew no such Administrator to his 
 Satisfaction ; for if ye Historian have not wronged some of ye first so bap- 
 tized in Holland, wch is too usual ; (Ainsworth's Defense of Scrip, p. 3 \ 
 
 128 
 
The Bampfield Document. 129 
 
 Clifton's Christn Plea, p. 181, 182 ; Mr. Jessop's Discovery of Errors of ye 
 Anabaptists, p. 65). One John Smith, a member of Henry Hainsworth's 
 Church there, being excommunicated for some scandalous offense, is re- 
 ported to be one of ye first, who baptized him selfe first, afterwards 
 baptized others : and this Story brought no good report of such an Admin- 
 istrator. 
 
 "Or two men (6) according to their Principle in their judgment alto- 
 gether (a) unbaptized before, did Baptize one another at ye first, 
 & afterwards did baptize others ; & so ware many of ye Baptizings in Lon- 
 don, originally reported to be in one, if not two instances, when also no 
 exterordinary call from God thereunto, yt ever he heard of yet, is pre- 
 tended or pleaded. 
 
 " Or else, a private Baptized Brother, (b) no lawfully called Minister 
 of Christ, nor rightly ordained officer in a true Church, did baptize others ; 
 & so he understands ware some of ye choicest and best Baptizings in ye 
 esteem of Several baptized Ones in London ; carried on by one who 
 always refused to be any Minister or ordained Officer in ye Church, (c) He 
 has been credibly informed by two yet alive in this City of London, who 
 ware members of ye first Church of baptized Believers here, yt their first 
 Administrator was one, who baptized him selfe, or else he and another 
 baptized one another, & so gathered a Church ; wch was so opposed in 
 Publick and private yt they ware disputed out of their Church, State & 
 Constitution, out of their call to office ; that not being able to justifie their 
 principle and practice by ye Word, they ware broken and scattered.* 
 
 ■' Or else such one or more, (d) whom such a company of Believers who 
 had no lawfully called, rightly ordained Minister or Church officer 
 amongst them before, Nor any such Minister or Ministers, Officer or Officers, 
 to ordain or Commission, Such & Yet do choose or undertake to ordain 
 by laying on of hands, they being all private Brethren, some private 
 Brothers or Brethren into ye Ministerial Office, & to send him or them 
 forth to preach & Baptize. 
 
 " Or else some such one (e) who however pretending to be called and 
 sent forth by men, Yet is not gifted, graced and qualified according to 
 ye requirements of Christ in his word for such an honorable office & 
 weighty work. 
 
 *Bampfield was satisfied that this baptism was not right, and he offers argu- 
 ments to prove that either self -baptism or that an unbaptized person baptizing 
 another, must be sent of God, and that such an administrator must have evi- 
 dence of an extraordinary call, as he himself claimed to have, and who doubt- 
 less baptized himself in the river at Saulisbury. See his work (Shem Acher, or 
 Historical Declaration of his Life, 1681, p. 38). 
 
130 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 " Or otherwise some such (f) who say they ware at first passing under 
 this Ordinance under an unavoidable Necessity of doing somewhat this 
 way beyond and besides ye ordinary stated Scripture Rule & way, wch 
 they hope ye Lord did accept of, they giving to him ye best they had 
 according to their then understanding. Thus farr Mr. Bamfield Henry 
 Lawrance Esqre, in his Excellent Treatise intituled Of Baptism discourses 
 in ye last Chapter of ye Minister of Baptism wherein he shows, etc." 
 
 This document here continues with* the added testimony of 
 Henry Lawrence, whose theory of the administrator of baptism 
 according to Bampfield's observations, is the same as recorded 
 by Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 105, 106), and referred to in this volume, 
 p. 86. Bampfield became a Baptist in London about the year 
 1676, and his work here referred to in this document, is cata- 
 logued among his other writings by Crosby (Vol. I., p. 368), 
 and published, 1681, under the title: "A Name, A New One; 
 or A Historical Declaration of His Life." The caption, intro- 
 duction and conclusion of the document were written by some 
 one somewhere between 1681 and 17 10, when the Collection of 
 1 7 1 2 was perhaps being gathered by Richard Adams, a Baptist 
 minister who lived to a great age and who was co-pastor with 
 Kiffin, whom he survived. Who the author of this document 
 was is not mentioned ; but he was evidently acquainted with the 
 writings of Bampfield, Lawrence, Ainsworth, Clifton, Jessop 
 and others of his day. The caption, introduction and con- 
 clusion of the document are therefore anonymous ; but the work 
 of Bampfield, the 15th, 16th and 17th pages, which he literally 
 quotes, is not anonymous, nor is his quotation from Lawrence 
 anonymous. The historical value of it consists in its confirma- 
 tion of Crosby's account of restoring immersion by the English 
 Baptists in the year 1640-41, and also in confirming the main 
 sentence in the Kifnn Manuscript: --None having then so prac- 
 ticed [immersion] in England to professed believers," upon 
 which Crosby's account, as to the Blunt movement, is based. 
 
 The most peculiar case in the restoration movement was that 
 of Bampfield. He conceived himself as the parallel of Paul in 
 an extraordinary conversion and call to the ministry ; and as 
 Saul took the new name of Paul, so he took the new name of 
 Shem Acher. He believed that the true church, its ministry 
 and baptism had been lost, and when convinced of Baptist 
 principles, about 1676, he was on the point of being dipped in 
 
The Bampfield Document. 
 
 131 
 
 the Thames. . For some reason he delayed the act, and con- 
 cluded to hunt for a proper administrator of immersion in Lon- 
 don. He had evidently reached the conviction of the Seekers, 
 that if baptism were restored, it must be at the hands of one 
 extraordinarily commissioned of God for the purpose. Such a 
 baptizer he nowhere found among the restorers of immersion in 
 England — whether self-baptized or baptized by unbaptized ad- 
 ministrators ; and he does not pretend to have so much as heard 
 of a claim to baptism by succession from the days of the Apos- 
 tles, or from any succeeding sect. Hence it needed that some 
 one should "perfect baptism" in order to restore it, and in order 
 to meet the objection of the Seekers and others that the Baptists 
 had no proper administrator, or ministry, or church. Having an 
 extraordinary conversion and call to the ministry, he claims that 
 he had an extraordinary commission from God to ' 'perfect bap- 
 tism," and so with another he went to Saulisbury and there 
 passed under the waters of baptism in the river of that place — 
 evidently by self-baptism and then baptized the man with him. 
 Thus he was prepared now to meet the objection of the Seekers 
 and to set up anew the order of Christ — repudiating all the 
 methods of restoring immersion by the Baptists upon the ground 
 that they had no proper administrator by extraordinary commis- 
 sion from Christ, as he had, to reintroduce the lost ordinance in 
 the latter age. (See Historical Declaration, &c, pp. 18, 19.) 
 He evidently did not hear of the little Blunt movement and only 
 confined his search among the larger body of Baptists, who had 
 repudiated the Blunt "method." As we have seen, the Blunt 
 movement had likely gone to pieces before 1646 and had faded 
 out of Baptist regard, or else Bampfield found none of the Blunt 
 persuasion. He evidently never saw the Jessey Records or the 
 Kiffin Manuscript which Richard Adams collected together with 
 the Bampfield and other documents of the time. 
 
 In order, however, to get at the value of the Bampfield Docu- 
 ment as historical testimony in favor of the thesis set up by the 
 Kiffin Manuscript and Crosby's Account of the revival of im- 
 mersion by the Baptists of England, 1640-41, I shall here give 
 an analysis of this paper, according to the figures which number 
 the points considered most important. 
 
 (1) The matter of "methods." Crosby speaks repeatedly of 
 the "methods" by which the "English Baptists" revived immer- 
 sion, 1640-41, both in his own text and in his version of the 
 
132 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Kiffin Manuscript ; and the expression ' *ye Methods taken by ye 
 Baptists to obtain a proper Administrator of Baptism by Immersion" 
 in the caption of this document is almost identical with Crosby 
 (Vol. L, p. 100, when he says: 
 
 "The two other methods that I mentioned, were indeed both taken by the 
 Baptists, at their revival of immersion in England." 
 
 It appears almost certain that Crosby copied this language 
 from the Bampneld Document based upon the authority of 
 Bampiield himself. 
 
 (2) The main paragraph in the Kiffin Manuscript: "None 
 having then so practiced [immersion] in England to professed be- 
 lievers" has its parallel in the caption of this document, which 
 reads: "When that practice [immersion] had been so long disused, 
 yt there was no one who had been so baptized to be found" On 
 page 97, Vol. I., Crosby uses a similar expression when he 
 speaks of ' 'reviving" the practice of immersion which had for 
 sometime been disused ; and the parallelism between the two 
 phrases "so long disused" and "had for some time been disused" in- 
 dicates that Crosby had this document before him. The likeness 
 of the two sentences found respectively in this and the Kiffin 
 MS. indicates that the writer of this caption was acquainted 
 with the Kiffin document, whether Bampneld was or not; and 
 this document is a complete corroboration of the Kiffin Manu- 
 script with respect to its leading sentence: "None having then 
 so practiced, &c. " The similar sentence in this document is a 
 little more explanatory in declaring that "there was no one who 
 had been so baptized to he found" and this expression may have 
 led Crosby to the still stronger version of the Kiffin MS. when he 
 says : 
 
 "They had not as t/iey knerv of, REVIVED the antient custom of im- 
 mersion." (Vol. L, p. 102.) 
 
 (3) "Since ye revival of yt practice in these latter times." This 
 clause follows the caption, in the introduction of this document 
 in which Bampfield is represented as enquiring diligently for the 
 "^rc/ administrator of baptism by immersion" — when? "Since 
 the 7'evival of that practice in these latter times" — that is, since 
 1 640-4 1 . This expression is also found almost literally in Crosby 
 (Vol. I., p. 105) in which he speaks of the defense of "the true 
 baptism, and the manner of reviving it in these latter times " by 
 
The Bampfield Document. 133 
 
 Henry Lawrence, whose name also follows in the same connec- 
 tion in the introduction of this document. Here is docu- 
 mentary proof that there was a revival of immersion in England 
 by the Baptists at a given time ; and that since the revival of that 
 practice Bampfield made a diligent search for the * 'first admin- 
 istrator." Crosby evidently had this document and drew from it 
 almost verbatim the above expression ; and this among other 
 authorities such as Lawrence, Tombes, Spilsbury and other 
 writers of the times, was the documentary evidence upon which 
 he based his account of the revival of immersion in England by 
 the "largest number and the more judicious of the English Bap- 
 tists," at the same time that Blunt and his party restored it ac- 
 cording to the Kiffin MS., 1640-41. The Kiffin Manuscript 
 and the Bampfield Document are the respective documentary 
 proofs of the "two methods," according to Crosby, by which the 
 English Baptists revived immersion in England — both written 
 "since ye revival of that practice in these latter times." Surely the 
 charge of "forgery" against the Kiffin Manuscript disappears in 
 the light of the Bampfield document. Not only so, but the 
 characterization of it as an "anonymous document," a "private 
 paper" without signature and without deposit," a "flying leaf," 
 and the like loses its force when placed by the side of this docu- 
 ment. The "fifty-three" names incorporated in the Kifiin Manu- 
 script are denied as signatures to the paper; but this "embodied 
 list" is in the nature of a historic attestation, and adds immeasur- 
 ably to the authenticity of the manuscript from an incidental 
 standpoint — especially so in the light of the Bampfield paper 
 and other historic data employed by Crosby. 
 
 (4). "He was informed either by Printed Records, or by Cred- 
 ible Witnesses, That ye Administrator was, &c." This informa- 
 tion is drawn, by the showing of this document that Bampfield 
 made diligent search for the "first administrator," from reliable 
 authority, and not from hearsay or second-hand sources; and 
 this is an evidence of the careful and credible authority of this 
 document based upon the testimony of Bampfield's book and 
 other data which he had at hand. 
 
 (5). The first information obtained by Bampfield was that the 
 first administrator was a "Selfe Baptizer," but "he Knew no 
 such Administrator to his Satisfaction ; although John Smyth was 
 "reputed" to him as having been "one of ye first, who baptized 
 himselfe first, afterwards baptized others" — "in Holland" — which 
 
134 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 he seems to regard as scandalized. He found no evidence, in 
 his research, that there was any succession of Smyth's self-bap- 
 tism to the English Baptists ; and this is in perfect accord with 
 Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 99, 100), in which he repudiates Smyth's 
 baptism as never having succeeded to the English Baptists — 
 another evidence that this document was before him, when he 
 wrote his history of the Baptists. As we have seen, the immer- 
 sion of John Smyth was merely a traditional report, at the time, 
 in England and even in the day of Crosby, who was not in pos- 
 session of Smyth's writings ; and as we have seen, Smyth's self- 
 baptism was doubtless affusion, and therefore immersion could not 
 have succeeded from him or his followers to the English Bap- 
 tists — all of which this document fully confirms, after Bampfield's 
 careful search for the "first administrator of baptism by immer- 
 sion" in England. 
 
 (6). Bampfield's observations covered a heterogeneous mass of 
 "methods" by which, in an irregular way, immersion was re- 
 vived among the English Baptists at the time of its restoration, 
 according to Spilsbury's theory, that "baptisednesse is not essen- 
 tial to the administrator." This was the "last method," accord- 
 ing to Crosby, as distinguished from the "former method" of 
 regular baptism adopted by Blunt and his party. There seems 
 to have been a sort of chaos in the grossness and irregularity of 
 the first or original administration of the ordinance upon its in- 
 troduction by these "Baptists;" and I will try here to give an 
 analysis of these methods if it be possible to come at them. 
 
 (a). Two men altogether unbaptized, baptized each other at 
 first, and afterwards baptized others, without any extraordinary 
 call from God for the purpose. It was thus that many of the 
 immersions in London originated, although at first reported to 
 have occurred in one, if not in two instances. This method of 
 originating a "proper administrator" was based upon the theory 
 of Spilsbury, and the one commonly held as legitimate among 
 the English Baptist writers on the subject. This was the prin- 
 ciple of Smyth, who baptized himself first in order to baptize 
 others who might transmit baptism through the church thus or- 
 ganized and begun; and this was the theory of Helwys, Morton, 
 and the rest who first followed Smyth and then afterwards ex- 
 cluded him and his faction for renouncing his method of baptism 
 and for seeking the "true church" through the Mennonites, as 
 already existent. 
 
The Bampfield Document. 
 
 J 35 
 
 (b). Next was the method of a private member of the church, 
 not lawfully called or ordained as a minister, who having been 
 baptized himself by some one perhaps according to the above 
 method, "did baptize others." From this source of administra- 
 tion, in the "esteem of several of the baptized ones in London," 
 Bampfield learned that there "were at the beginning some of 
 the choicest and best baptizings." This method was based upon 
 the theory of lay baptism, the ordinance not being dependent for 
 its validity on succession, nor on any sort of official administra- 
 tion. This theory, I believe, is common to the Campbellites of 
 our day. It is also advocated in the Confession of the Seven 
 Churches of London, 1 644-1 646. It is apt to prevail in the 
 early years of all churches before they get time to develop sacra- 
 mentalism and hierarchism. 
 
 (c) . Two persons who were living at the time Bampfield made 
 his inquiry, and who were members of the "first Church of Bap- 
 tized Believers," in London, told him that their first adminis- 
 trator "baptized himselfe, or else he and another baptized one 
 another and so gathered a church." It is added, however, that 
 this church "was so opposed in public and private that they were 
 disputed out of their church state and constitution," and their 
 ministry, I suppose, "out of their call to office; that not being 
 able to justify their principle and practice by the Word [of God], 
 they were broken and scattered." This statement is in perfect 
 accord with Crosby (Vol. L, p. 97), who says that, in the per- 
 plexity of the Baptists, at the time they revived immersion, about 
 what methods they should pursue in order not to be ' 'guilty of 
 any disorder or self-contradiction," there were "some, indeed, 
 [who] were of opinion, that the first administrator should baptize 
 himself, and then proceed to the baptizing of others;" and it 
 looks as if Crosby drew his information from this document. As 
 indicated by both Crosby and this document, the plan failed by 
 this method ; and although it was attempted by those who gath- 
 ered the first church of baptized believers in London, at the time, 
 they were "broken and scattered," "disputed out of their church 
 state and constitution," and "out of their call to office," because 
 "unable to justify their principle and practice according to the 
 Word." The opposition not only came, doubtless, from Pedo- 
 baptists who taunted afterwards the Baptists with this method 
 from John Smyth, but from the Baptists themselves, at that time, 
 who adopted and perpetuated the "two other methods" recorded 
 
136 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 by Crosby. We cannot tell what church this first body of bap- 
 tized believers was, unless it was the original Helwys Church 
 itself which sought to apply Smyth's old self-baptism theory to 
 immersion in 1641. The idea was not dead among them ; but 
 at that period, the Baptists had taken higher ground — one party 
 demanding regular immersion, and the other being satisfied to 
 restore it by an unbaptized administrator after the fashion of 
 John the Baptist and according to the Scriptures as quoted for 
 the purpose by Edward Barber and others of the period. With 
 but the exception of the original church of Helwys, the Baptist 
 body adopted restoration by the regular and anti-succession 
 methods and repudiated the self-baptism method ; and, accord- 
 ing to the information of Bampfield, the old first church of bap- 
 tized believers — or some such church — went to pieces upon the 
 old theory evidently inherited from Smyth and his original fol- 
 lowers. 
 
 (d). Another method at the time was adopted by a "company 
 of believers," without an ordained ministry, who came together 
 and with private hands laid upon one or more of their number, 
 set them apart to the ministerial office, and "sent them forth to 
 preach and to baptize" — that is before they were baptized them- 
 selves. This does not imply church organization or church au- 
 thority, necessarily, in setting apart these private brethren to 
 preach and baptize; but it approaches the idea of having some 
 necessary recognition at the hands of God's people in order to 
 preach and baptize, and is in the nature of church authority for 
 such a purpose, which is an idea now largely prevalent among 
 Baptists. 
 
 (e). Bampfield instances another method of reviving immersion 
 at the time by a self-appointed pretender, claiming to be "called 
 and sent forth by men" — yet "not gifted, graced and qualified 
 according to the requirements of Christ in his word for such an 
 honorable office and mighty work." This accounts, perhaps, for 
 the irresponsible and disreputable administration of the ordinance 
 from 1 64 1 and onward charged by Lamb, Featley, Richardson, 
 Edwards, Allen, Bakewell, Hall, Goodwin, Watts, Houghton, 
 Baxter and others from 1643 1° J ^75- Evidently, according to 
 the history of the times, the introduction of immersion, 1640- 
 41, was attended by some gross irregularities by reason of the 
 irregular methods adopted for its restoration; and it is probable 
 for this reason, and on account of the charges of their enemies, 
 
The Bampfield Document. 137 
 
 that in 1644 the Particular Baptists put into the 40th article of 
 their Confession on Baptism, the directions about clothing — the 
 charge having been preferred, whether true or false, that some of 
 the Baptists immersed their candidates in a naked or semi-nude 
 condition. I suppose that charge applied to the General Baptists. 
 The literature of the time shows that this custom was widespread. 
 It was apparently the universal custom of early Christian ages. 
 
 (f) . Finally Bampfield speaks of some who claimed irregularity 
 in the administration of the ordinance by reason of some ' ' una- 
 voidable necessity," "beyond and beside the ordinary stated 
 Scripture rule and way;" and they are represented as apologizing 
 for circumstances or conditions in which they "hope the 
 Lord did accept of [their irregularity], they giving to him the 
 best they had according to their then understanding." It is 
 difficult to understand here what is meant by "passing under this 
 ordinance under an unavoidable necessity, &c.;" but it would 
 appear that those who introduced immersion according to this 
 method did so in some extraordinary case without intelligent con- 
 viction of duty contrary to what they afterward found to be the 
 "ordinary stated Scripture rule and way" — for which they hoped 
 divine acceptance, having done the best they knew according to 
 their then light. 
 
 Historically the so-called Kiffin Manuscript details the Blunt 
 movement and the Bampfield Document details the general 
 methods of restoring baptism according to the anti-succession 
 theory. These two documents supplement each other ; and the 
 two put together constitute the main documentary evidence of 
 the two-fold movement. There are points in each which are 
 common to both and which mutually establish their authenticity 
 and validity as documents relating to the same great event and to 
 the same particular date; and then there are points which, though 
 not in themselves common, are corroborative of each other in re- 
 ferring to the same common event in which, along different lines, 
 the English Baptists as a body revived immersion — confirmed by 
 other writings of the time which also make these documents sup- 
 plemental to each other. The Jessey Church Records and the 
 Bampfield Document, as evidence of a common event, are 
 Siamese Twins bound together by the common ligament of a sub- 
 stantially similar sentence: " None then having so practiced [im- 
 mersion] in England to professed believers" — "That practice 
 [immersion] had been so long disused [in England], that there 
 
138 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 was no one who had been so baptized to be found." These two 
 sentences refer both these documents to the same event in gen- 
 eral and to the same date in particular. 
 
 The question arises : To what date does the event described in 
 the Bampfield Document refer? Unquestionably to the same 
 date of the Kiffin Manuscript, 1640-41. Both documents refer 
 to the "methods taken by the Baptists [of England] to obtain a 
 proper administrator of baptism by immersion, when that prac- 
 tice had been so long disused, that there was no one who had 
 been so baptized to be found" — "none then [at and up to that 
 time] having so practiced in England to professed believers ; " 
 and the "when" and the "then" of these two sentences respect- 
 ively point to the same date, 1640-41, given only by the Kiffin 
 Manuscript. These two sentences identify the two documents as 
 common to the same event, and to the same date ; and Crosby's 
 phraseology seems so evidently copied in some particulars from 
 the Bampfield Document that he identifies it with the same event 
 to which he applies the Kiffin Manuscript, and therefore to the 
 same date. The restoration of immersion by the Baptists of Eng- 
 land, a fact common to both documents, did not, so far as the 
 history of the English Baptists shows, occur but once; and 1640- 
 41 is the only date given in any document. That event, accord- 
 ing to any known history, did not occur in 161 1, 1633, 1638, or 
 1639, at which dates the origin of Baptist churches is mentioned; 
 and it is no£ until 1640-41, that such an event is detailed by any 
 document. Hence if the Kiffin and the Bampfield documents 
 point to the same event they point to the same date — although 
 that date is not specifically mentioned in the latter document. 
 
 It has been urged that the Hutchinson Account and the Kiffin 
 Manuscript based the deputation of Blunt to Holland simply 
 upon the ground of'" legitimacy," that is, in securing a "proper 
 administrator," the irregular practice of immersion being already 
 existent among the General Baptists of England; but the Bamp- 
 field Document is "an account of the methods taken by the Bap- 
 tists to obtain a proper administrator of baptism by immersion, 
 when that practice had been so long disused, that there was no 
 one who had been so baptized to be found ; " and the document 
 goes into detail of the several irregular methods by which a 
 "proper administrator " was obtained. 
 
 In concluding this chapter I wish to cite the authority of Prof. 
 Henry C. Vedder in a note of April, 1897, in which he confirmed 
 
The Bampfield Document. 139 
 
 the position of the writer in the use of the Bampfield Document 
 in his work entitled: A Review of the Question, pp. 232-234. 
 He says : 
 
 "A week ago precisely I mailed to the Christian Index some comments 
 on the Bampfield Document, in which I took exactly the ground of your 
 main contention, namely: That Crosby and Evans distinctly favor the 
 opinion that immersion was introduced in 1641, and that Dr. Whitsitt has 
 rediscovered what was once the general opinion among Baptists. The tra- 
 dition that English Baptists always immersed is really of late origin, and 
 apparently of American origin, since no reputable English writer can be 
 quoted in its favor before the beginning of the present controversy." 
 
 As already said, I have thoroughly examined Bampfield' s Shem 
 Acher and find the extract here copied correct. He regarded 
 either method of restoring immersion correct, whether by self- 
 baptism or at the hands of unbaptized administrators; but he 
 claimed like the Seekers, that there must be an extraordinary 
 commission for such restoration, that is, in order to "perfect 
 baptism." That commission he himself claimed to have; and, 
 under that claim, he evidently baptized himself about 1676 — 
 after having sought to find a satisfactory "first or after" admin- 
 istrator of immersion. He found a number of methods by which 
 the Baptists had restored immersion in England; but with his 
 view of perfecting the ordinance in its restoration, none of the 
 methods were satisfactory and so baptized himself under an ex- 
 traordinary claim. He shows however that all the methods of 
 restoration which he found had originated by unbaptized admin- 
 istrators; and hence the conclusion of the Bampfield Document 
 that those methods were of recent date. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 CROSBY'S WITNESSES. 
 
 Crosby ranks John Smyth among the first "restorers of im- 
 mersion in this latter age;" but, as we have seen, it is almost cer- 
 tain that Smyth was not an immersionist and that he baptized 
 himself by affusion — a fact to which Crosby did not have access 
 in the day he wrote. Crosby is nevertheless right in assuming 
 that Smyth wrought a "reformation in baptism" and that Helwys 
 and Morton "joined with him" in the movement, in Holland, in 
 1609. (Vol. I., pp. 97, 99.) Smyth is the author of the leading 
 English Baptist idea of restoring the true church and right bap- 
 tism, when lost, by "believers having Christ, the Word and the 
 Spirit;" and that even two believers can join together for 
 the purpose. He claimed that the true church and right bap- 
 tism could not be found in Rome, nor in the English Church, 
 nor among the Separatists whose succession could be traced only 
 through infant baptism; and he regarded the Mennonite Ana- 
 baptists as too heretical to claim to be the true church and to 
 possess right baptism. Both were lost in the long night of Romish 
 apostasy, Protestant variation and Anabaptist heresy. Hence 
 Smyth began anew with a self-originated church and baptism 
 upon the principle, however, that the first administrator may 
 baptize himself in order to begin. He differed only from the 
 subsequent English view in the method of self-baptism; but 
 otherwise Smyth laid the foundation of English Baptist position, 
 when necessary to reform, of self-originated church and baptism 
 by an /^baptized administrator (but not j^-baptized) after the 
 manner of John the Baptist. That view utterly repudiated the 
 doctrine of succession as a Popish fiction from 1609 to 1641 and 
 onward from that day till this among English Baptists. 
 
 This was the view of Helwys, Morton and their followers who 
 became the General Baptists of England; and was also generally 
 
 140 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 14X 
 
 the view of the Particular Baptists who were self-originated in 
 1633. Helwys against "The New Fryelers" (Mennonites), 
 161 1, held the original position of Smyth on this subject — vigor- 
 ously maintaining it, and opposing "succession;" and in the cel- 
 ebrated tract, "Persecution for Religion Judged and Con- 
 demned," 161 5, the same theory formulated by Crosby, is clearly 
 stated, "that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbap- 
 tised person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reforma- 
 tion." (See pp. 164-169, Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, 
 Hanserd Knollys' Society Publications). "Every believer," 
 says Smyth (A Description, &c, p. 164) "hath Christ and his 
 apostles, commanding him to covet to preach, 1 Cor. 14:1; and 
 to call all to come, Rev. 22:17; and when they come to baptize 
 them." Smyth abandoned his view and sought regularity 
 through the Mennonites afterwards; but his English followers 
 held the position which he had surrendered. 
 
 "If in Turkey or America " (Perkins on Galatians (1604), p, 35), "or 
 elsewhere, the gospel should be received of men, by the counsel and per- 
 suasion of private persons, they shall not need to send into Europe for 
 consecrated ministers, but they have power to choose their own ministers 
 from within themselves ; because where God gives the word he gives the 
 power." 
 
 This was the early view of founding the church and baptism, 
 lost, anew; and the view has never been abandoned among the 
 conservative majority of Baptist people. 
 
 In 1614 Leonard Busher, without regard to the principle upon 
 which Baptists had the right to reform the church and baptism 
 anew, went further in defining baptism as immersion, a burial 
 and a resurrection, according to Rom. 6:4; Collos. 2:12; but 
 there is no evidence that the followers of Smyth and Helwys 
 followed his definition in practice. The contrary probability is 
 established that they followed Smyth's affusion, after the Men- 
 nonite custom; but Smyth, in his Confessions, uses -precisely the 
 same figure of burial and resurrection as symbolic of baptism 
 which, nevertheless, he represents as a "washing." So of the 
 Confession of 161 1 which, while it implies the symbols of death 
 and life, calls the ordinance a "washing with water," after the 
 usual phraseology of Pedobaptist and other confessions of that 
 day and since, which enjoin affusion or aspersion lor baptism. 
 
142 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The argument at that time among Pedobaptists and Mennonites 
 was that while baptizo meant "to dip," it also meant "to 
 wash," as in Mark 7:4,8; and they had no hesitation in using the 
 symbolism of immersion in connection with the definition, 
 "washing with water" by affusion. This, as we have before said, 
 was most probably the view of Smyth and his followers; and it 
 can only be conceived that Leonard Busher took an advance step 
 in his exclusive definition of baptism which did not obtain among 
 Helwys and the rest of the Anabaptists of his day. It remained 
 for 1 641 to Blunt and his followers to put in practice what Busher 
 had defined by the same Scriptures; and upon which the whole 
 Baptist fraternity followed not in the reformation of the principle 
 but in the form of believers' baptism. Smyth and his followers 
 had established the principle of believers' baptism and the true 
 church based upon the Baptist model, restored from the chaos of 
 the Romish, Protestant and what he conceived the Anabaptist 
 apostasy; but, in 1641, the English Baptists took a higher step of 
 progress in the restoration of the "ancient practice" of baptism 
 by immersion, as exclusive of all other modes of administering 
 the ordinance. 
 
 This step, so far as it was confined to Blunt and his party, was 
 a new departure from the Smyth idea, that is, by the method of 
 a "proper administrator," already baptized; and hence it is 
 called by Crosby the "former method" as distinguished from the 
 "last method" in opposition to what the great body of English 
 Baptists regarded as a "succession" method of restoring the 
 ordinance. Aside from the Kiffin Manuscript, or Jessey 
 Records, already treated, Crosby introduces, as a witness, 
 Edward Hutchinson (A Treatise concerning the Covenant and 
 Baptism, 1676, pp. 2-4; Crosby, Vol. I., pp. 100, 101) in 
 confirmation of this document. I will quote here the first and 
 last part of the passage in addition to Crosby's citation. Speak- 
 ing of Pedobaptist opposition to Baptists in their effort to restore 
 immersion Hutchinson says : 
 
 "And what our dissenting brethren have to answer upon that account 
 (who instead of taking up, have laid stumblingblocks in the way of 
 Reformation) will appear another day. Yet notwithstanding the stren- 
 uous opposition of those learned ones, The mighty God of Jacob hath 
 taken you [Baptists] by the hand and said be strong. 
 
 " Besides it has a considerable tendency to advancement of divine 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 143 
 
 grace, if we consider the way and manner of Reviving this costly truth. 
 When the professors of these nations had been a long time wearied with 
 the yoke of superstitious ceremonies, traditions of men, and corrupt mix- 
 tures in the worship and service of God : it pleased the Lord to break 
 these yokes, and by a very strong impulse of the Spirit upon the hearts 
 of the people, to convince them of the necessity of reformation. Divers 
 pious and very gracious people having often sought the Lord by fasting 
 and prayer, that he would show them the pattern of his home, the goings 
 out and the comings in thereof, &c, resolved, by the grace of God, not 
 to receive or practice any piece of positive worship, which had not pre- 
 cept or example from the word of God. Infant baptism, coming of course 
 under consideration, after long search and many debates, it was found to 
 have no footing in the Scriptures, the only rule and standard to try doc- 
 trines by ; but on the contrary a mere innovation, yea, the profanation of 
 an ordinance of God. And though it was purposed to be laid aside, yet 
 what fears, tremblings, and temptations did attend them lest, they should 
 be mistaken, considering how many learned and godly men were of an 
 opposite persuasion ? How gladly would they have had the rest of their 
 brethren gone along with them! But when there was no hope, they con- 
 cluded, that as a Christian's faith must not. stand in the wisdom of men; 
 and that every one must give an account of himself to God; and so 
 resolved to practice according to their light. The great objection was the 
 want of an administrator ; which as I have heard, says he, was removed by 
 sending certain messengers to Holland, whence they were supplied. So 
 that this little cloud of witnesses [Baptists] hath the Lord by his grace so 
 greatly increased, that it hath spread over our Horizon, though opposed 
 and contradicted by men of all sorts." 
 
 Hutchinson clearly takes for granted that immersion was lost ; 
 and he speaks of ' 'the way and manner of reviving this costly 
 truth" — assuming that it was restored under the Blunt method of 
 a "proper administrator" which was supplied by sending to 
 Holland. This movement is evidently referred by him to the 
 Particular element of Baptists which Crosby represents as being 
 "intermixed" with the Puritans, and as separating, 1633 and 
 onward, and "forming churches of those of their own per- 
 suasion." His description of the movement 1640-41 accords 
 with the details of the Kiffin MS. , or Jessey Records, when he 
 speaks of their fasts, prayers, councils, debates and the like, 
 preceding their final conviction against infant baptism and in 
 
144 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 favor of believers' baptism; their discussion about a "proper 
 administrator" — probably extending from 1633 to 1640; and, 
 finally, when immersion, as the proper and only mode of bap- 
 tism, became the essential conviction of these Anabaptists, 
 there being no such practice in England, their deputation of 
 Blunt to Holland for a proper administrator of the proper 
 ordinance. Hutchinson clearly confirms "the way and manner 
 of reviving" immersion in the movement detailed by the Kiffin 
 MS., or the Jessey Records. 
 
 With regard to the "last method" of restoring immersion — the 
 anti-succession movement — Crosby employs three very strong 
 witnesses. The first of these is John Spilsbury who wrote a 
 Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subjects of Baptism, &c. , 1652, 
 in which (4) he shows how "wanting church or ordinance are to be 
 recovered-" (5) the "Covenant, not Baptism, forms the Church;" 
 (6) "There is no succession under the New Testament, but such 
 as is spiritually by faith in the Word of God." In proof of the 
 restoration of immersion by the "last method," and by the 
 "greatest number of the English Baptists," Crosby cites Spils- 
 bury's Treatise of Baptism (pp. 63, 65, 66), 1644, in which 
 (Crosby, pp. 103, 104, Vol. I.), he says: 
 
 "Where there is a beginning, some one must be first." "And be- 
 cause," says Spilsbury, "some make it such an error, and so far from any 
 rule or example, for a man to baptize others, who is himself unbaptized, 
 and so think thereby to shut up the ordinance of God in such a strait, that 
 none can come to it, but thro' the authority of the Popedom of Rome; 
 let the reader consider who baptized John the Baptist before he baptized 
 others, if no man did, and then whether he did not baptize others, he him- 
 self being unbaptized. We are taught by this what to do on like occasions. 
 
 "Further, I fear men put more than is of right due to it that so prefer 
 it above the church, and all other ordinances besides ; for they can assume 
 and erect a church, take in and cast out members, elect and ordain 
 officers, and administer the Supper, and all anew, without any looking 
 after succession, any further than the Scriptures : But as for baptism, they 
 must have that successively from the Apostles, tho' it come thro' the 
 hands of Tope Joan. What is the cause of this that men can do all from 
 the Word but only baptism ? " 
 
 This is in answer to the Pedobaptist position on succession at 
 that period. 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 145 
 
 It is possible that Spilsbury's position regarding the admin- 
 istrator of baptism created scruples with some after the seces- 
 sion of 1633. He evidently baptized at first without being bap- 
 tized himself upon the theory that "baptizednesse is not essen- 
 tial to the administrator •" and in the agitation for immersion, 
 1640-41, which in all probability followed upon the dissatisfac- 
 tion, it is possible, as Dr. Newman thinks, that Spilsbury began 
 immersion upon his theory in May or June, 1640, before Blunt's 
 return. At all events, Crosby uses Spilsbury in proof of the 
 second method of restoring immersion, 1640-41. He certainly 
 did not begin immersion in 1633 or 1638, since Blunt, Jessey, 
 Blacklock, Lucar, Kilcop, Shepard, Munden and others who 
 were immersed in 1641, based their action upon the fact affirmed 
 in the Jessey Church Records that "none" down to 1640, "had 
 so practiced in England to professed believers." 
 
 In two of Spilsbury's works, "God's Ordinance, the Saints 
 Privilege," London, 1646, and "A Treatise Concerning the 
 Lawful Subjects of Baptisme," London, 1652 (probably 1642), 
 he squarely takes for granted that the true church, ministry and 
 ordinances of Christ had been lost under the apostasy of Rome 
 and that they had been restored by the Baptists of England; 
 and in Barebone's assault upon him (A Defense of the Lawful- 
 nesse of Baptizing Infants, &c, .London, 1644) ne charges him 
 with this assumption in unmistakable terms. From page 62 to 
 67 of his Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subjects of Baptisme, 
 he shows (4), "If either Church, or Ordinance be wanting, 
 where they are to be found, and how recovered; (5) "The Cove- 
 nant, and not Baptism, forms the Church, and the manner 
 how ;" and (6) "There is no succession under the New Testa- 
 ment, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God" — 
 precisely agreeing with Smyth, Helwys and Morton, except (5) 
 that the Covenant, not Baptism, forms the Church. He teaches 
 (pp. 62, 63) that in order to recover Christ's lost ordinances that 
 believers convinced of the truth and the necessity of obedience 
 — the Spirit speaking in them — are to go to the Scriptures for 
 them ; and having thus found them, they are to be enjoyed by 
 those desiring them at the hands of those whom God raises up 
 to preach the truth, though not themselves baptized. In answer 
 to the objection: "How can such receive others into the Gospel 
 order, that were never in themselves ?" he answers: "Where there 
 is a beginning, some must be first ;" and on page 64 Spilsbury 
 
 10 
 
146 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 meets two other objections (1) of those who hold a personal suc- 
 cession, and (2) of those who maintain that baptism is the form 
 of the church. Here follows Crosby's long quotation, to which 
 I refer the reader ; and following the words quoted by Crosby, 
 Spilsbury adds : 
 
 "And for the continuation of the Church from Christ's words, 'The 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it, &c.,' I Confesse the same with 
 this distinction ; which Church is to be Considered either with respect to 
 her instituted State, as lies in the Scripture, in the rules of the foundation, 
 or in her Constitution, or constituted form in her visible order. Against 
 the first hell gates shall never prevail, the foundation stan,ds sure ;- but 
 against the last it hath often prevailed, for the Church in hej outward 
 visible order, hath been often scattered through persecution, and the like, 
 in which sense she is said to be prevailed against as Dan. 7, Rev. 12, Acts 
 8:1. Otherwise where was their Church [Puritan Reformers] before it 
 came from under the defection. 
 
 "Again, That which once was in such a way of being, and Ceaseth for 
 a time, and then comes to the same Estate again, is, and may be truly said, 
 to have ever a continuance, as Matt. 22:31,32 with Luke 20:38. In which 
 sense the Church may truly be said ever to continue, for though she be 
 cast down at one time, yet God will raise her up at another, so that she 
 shall never be prevailed against, as to be utterly destroyed" — 
 
 precisely the position of Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Barber, and 
 all other Baptists before and after him in the Seventeenth cen- 
 tury. 
 
 On page 66 Spilsbury concludes the above position by saying: 
 
 ''But we are to know this, that truth depends not on Churches, nor any 
 mortal creature, but onely upon the immortal God, who by his Word and 
 Spirit reveals the same, and when and to whom he pleases. And for suc- 
 cession of truth, it comes now by the promise of God, and faith of his 
 people, whom he as aforesaid, hath taken out of the world unto himself, 
 in the fellowship of the Gospel: to whom the ordinances of Christ stand 
 only by succession of faith, and not of persons ; for the same power and 
 authority the Apostles had in their time for direction in godlinesse, the 
 Scriptures have now in the hand of Christ, as the head of the Church, 
 which make up but one body. 1 Cor. 12:12,27; Ephes. 1:22,23; Eph. 
 4:15,16. So that what the Church and the Apostles together might do 
 then, the same may the head and body, together with the Scriptures, 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 147 
 
 do now, the Scriptures having the same authority in the Church now as the 
 Apostles had then, the same Spirit being present now to reveal them, as 
 then to write them, 1 Cor. 5:4,5 ; 2 Tim. 3:15,16." 
 
 Of course, by the words, "the church," as here employed, 
 Spilsbury is only meaning the spiritual, and not the organized 
 body of Christ, which with the Scriptures and the Spirit can 
 now recover the ordinances when lost, just as they were set up 
 under the apostles. 
 
 In his Epistle to the Reader, pp. 2,3, he denies the charge of 
 rebaptization, or a new way of baptizing, as follows : 
 
 "And yet not holding any rebaptizing, for he that is once baptized with 
 the Lord's true Baptism, he needs no more. Nor yet a new way of bap- 
 tizing, as some to please themselves, so call it ; but only that good old 
 way, which John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles walked in before us, 
 and left the same as a Rule under command in the holy Scriptures for such 
 as will be followers of them to walk by." 
 
 He then proceeds to show that the meaning of Baptizo is to 
 "dip, wash, or plunge one into the water" — the "good old 
 way" — 
 
 "Though some please to mock and deride, by calling it a new found 
 way, and what they please. Indeed it is a new found truth, in opposition 
 to an old-grown error ; and so it is a new thing to such, as the Apostles 
 Doctrine was to the Athenians, Act. 17:19. But this being no part of the 
 following discourse, I shall leave it, &c." 
 
 Here Spilsbury denies that immersion is a "new way" of bap- 
 tizing, but he does not deny that it was a "new found way." 
 On the contrary, he says : 
 
 "Indeed, it is a new found truth, in opposition to an old-grown error;" 
 
 and he implies that it was not only a "new found truth" to 
 the Baptists who had revived it, but that it was wholly a "new 
 thing" to the Pedobaptists. So Hutchinson speaks of "the way 
 and manner of reviving this costly truth" of adult immersion here 
 spoken of by Spilsbury as "recovered" and which, of course, was 
 a "new found way" — a "new found truth" — to the Baptists who 
 had restored it. Before the days of Blunt and Spilsbury, "be- 
 lievers' baptism," as restored by Smyth and his people, was 
 spoken of as a ' 'new baptism" without reference to mode, but 
 
148 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 principle; but after 1640-41 the "way of baptizing," that is, by- 
 immersion, was also called "new;" and although the Baptists 
 denied that it was a new way or truth, they admitted that it was 
 a "new found way," a "newfound truth," that is, a "costly truth 
 revived." It was in view of this admission, or rather of the 
 facts in the case, that Praisegod Barebone, in his reply to Spils- 
 bury (A Defense of the Lawfulnesse of Baptizing Infants, &c, 
 London, 1644, p. 18), charges that Spilsbury had overthrown 
 "the baptisme of believers' infants" and the "baptisme in defec- 
 tion of Antichrist" — and concludes by saying: 
 
 "So as like a workman indeed he hath overthrown the outward Chris- 
 tianity, and relation to Christ in that way, priviliges of grace, and saint- 
 ship aud whatnot; all which are of much concernment every way, unto men; 
 and that of all persons in the world \ only these few ; so of late baptized by totall 
 dipping." 
 
 Spilsbury had himself admitted that believers' immersion was 
 indeed a "new found truth;" and Barebone is perfectly right in 
 speaking of the Baptists as "of late baptized by totall dipping." 
 
 In the whole of his reply to Spilsbury, Barebone argues that 
 baptism under the defection of Antichrist had succeeded to the 
 Reformed Churches, and had not been lost, and was Scriptural 
 as an infant rite ; that if lost as an adult rite, as claimed by the 
 Baptists, it could not be restored except in the orderly way by ex- 
 traordinary commission evidenced by miracle ; and that Spilsbury 
 having rejected his first baptism, and assumed a second, had 
 separated himself from the true church, and renounced the true 
 baptism which he had in infancy. He holds strenuously to the 
 doctrine of succession to the reformed churches through the 
 defection of Antichrist by means of infant baptism ; and while 
 Spilsbury admits such a succession as this to Pedobaptists, he 
 repudiates it as a mark of the Beast, and affirms that the only 
 succession known to Baptists is that of the Scriptures and the 
 faith of true disciples. Upon this he bases his theory of re- 
 covery of the ordinances of Christ, the true church and its 
 ministry. He holds precisely with Smyth except that he puts 
 the church before baptism, just as Lawrence does, and makes 
 the covenant instead of baptism the constitution of the church. 
 Like Smyth and his followers he is charged with setting up a 
 "new baptism" as applied to believers versus infants, and hence 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 149 
 
 called rebaptism; but unlike Smyth and his followers he is 
 charged with a "new way of baptizing," that is, by immersion; 
 and as both declare that believers' baptism, irrespective of 
 mode, is the old baptism, so Spilsbury and his followers declare 
 immersion, though the old way, to be the "new-found" way. 
 
 In his work (God's Ordinance, the Saints' Privilege, London, 
 1646) Spilsbury, in the first part, meets the objection of the 
 Seekers that the true church, ministry and ordinances of Christ — 
 all the visible or outward forms of Christianity — had been lost 
 under the reign of Antichrist, and that they could not be restored 
 without extraordinary commission approved by miracle. He 
 admits the fact that they had been lost, but that they could be 
 recovered under the succession of the Scriptures and the faith 
 of true believers to whom God should reveal the truth and 
 the duty to obey. He meets all objections to the want of a 
 proper administration of the ordinances, as he does in his 
 "Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subjects of Baptism"; and his 
 argument under this head is substantially the same in both of 
 his works here quoted. The doctrine of Spilsbury is not suc- 
 cession, but reproduction. Romanism and Protestantism claimed 
 succession upon the basis of infant baptism and their whole 
 church state, inwardly and outwardly, depended upon this 
 brittle thread of continuance; but Baptists, though preserved 
 in the line of faith, depended upon the truth of the Scriptures 
 for their perpetual reproduction in the recovery of their vis- 
 ible order and constitution — so often broken and destroyed. 
 Wherever the Gospel has existed, even in the darkest ages of 
 Popery, there have been true believers; and when God has 
 willed to reveal the truth to his people and prompt their obedi- 
 ence by his Spirit they have restored the outward order of the 
 Gospel. Their existence and continuance did not depend upon 
 the succession of this outward order, as claimed for Rome and 
 her daughters ; and of the two doctrines, succession or restora- 
 tion, the latter is the true evidence of God's sovereignty and 
 power in the keeping and continuance of his visible institutions 
 without generating the sacramental pride of his people. Repro- 
 duction — this is the original Baptist idea of succession to the 
 external order of Gospel institutions ; and this ideal is in perfect 
 keeping with Baptist history according to Spilsbury, King, 
 Blackwood, Smyth, Helwys, Cornwell and others, who admit 
 the spiritual succession of God's people through all ages, but 
 
150 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 who deny a visible succession of churches, ministry or ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 Spilsbury was the foremost Baptist writer of the 1641 period. 
 He was scholarly and well informed. He became an Anabap- 
 tist after 1633 and was pastor of the first Particular Baptist Church 
 in 1638. He was thoroughly conversant with the 1641 movement 
 for the restoration of immersion, and was of the largest and most 
 judicious body of the Baptists who maintained the revival of the 
 ordinance by unbaptized administrators. Accordingly we find 
 him in 1641 rising up to rebaptize Sam Eaton who had been re- 
 baptized in 1633 — then by aspersion, now by immersion; and 
 this was probably the first immersion ever performed by Spils- 
 bury. Hence the clear, clean cut utterances of Spilsbury in his 
 writings against the Popish doctrine of succession; his candid 
 admission that the visible order of Christ's churches, ministry 
 and ordinances had been lost under the reign of anti-Christ; his 
 plan for their recovery according to the Scriptures; his explana- 
 tion that the gates of hell had often prevailed against the outward 
 or constituted state of the church, though never against the in- 
 ward or instituted state; his unequivocal confession that while 
 immersion was the "good old way" and not a "new way" or a 
 "new truth," yet it was a "new found truth" or a "new found 
 way" in "opposition to an old grown error" — all this takes for 
 granted the recent erection of Baptist churches in England upon 
 the principle of believers' baptism and the still more recent in- 
 troduction of immersion about 1640-41 at which time he seems 
 to have been one of the first administrators. There is no differ- 
 ence between Spilsbury and Smyth except as to the question re- 
 garding baptismal mode. This never came up in Smyth's writ- 
 ings because he practiced the same mode that his opponents did; 
 but after 1641 it was not only charged that Baptists practiced a 
 " new baptism," that is, believers' as opposed to infant baptism, 
 but that they practiced a "new way" of baptism, that is, immer- 
 sion as opposed to sprinkling. Hence Spilsbury and the Baptist 
 writers after 1641 had often to combat this point in controversy 
 — a thing unknown before 1641, although sprinkling was univer- 
 sally in vogue in England from 1600 to 1641, even among the 
 Anabaptists — so far as known. 
 
 Spilsbury is in perfect accord with Smyth, Helwys, Morton, 
 Barber, King, Blackwood, Jessey and all the other Baptist writers 
 of the period, so far as I know, upon the subject of Baptist sue- 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 
 
 151 
 
 cession. They all give the keynote to Baptist position on this 
 question. Every one of them agrees that Matt. 16:18 refers to 
 the invisible or spiritual body of Christ, and not to the visible or 
 local churches of Christ; and they prove their position invariably 
 (1) by the past history of God's people and (2) by the constant 
 admission, either express or implied, that the English Baptists 
 began by the erection of the church and baptism anew — that they 
 were a separation or a reformation. They know nothing of any 
 connection, organically or baptismally, with any prior sect, soci- 
 eties or churches preceding their origin, 1611-1633, and if any 
 such connection had existed in the 17th century such men as 
 Spilsbury, Tombes, King and the like would have known and 
 acknowledged the fact. Hence the 17th century writers settle 
 the question of Baptist succession. They utterly deny it except 
 in the spiritual sense; and they repudiate it as a Popish or Pedo- 
 baptist fiction. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 tO 164T A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 CROSBY'S WITNESSES— Continued. 
 
 Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 104, 105) cites "the learned Mr. Tombes 
 who," says he, "does very excellently defend this last method of 
 restoring true baptism." John Tombes (An Addition to the 
 Apology For the Two Treatises Concerning Infant Baptism, 
 1652, London) in reply to Baillie's charge that he maintained the 
 right of unbaptized persons to baptize others, did not hesitate to 
 defend the proposition upon the ground that baptism had been 
 lost and that the Baptists had restored the ordinance at the hands 
 of unbaptized administrators, among whom, for a long time, he 
 was himself such. As quoted by Crosby (pp. 10, 11, Section 
 IV. of his Addition) he says, as follows: 
 
 " If* no continuance of adult baptism can be proved and baptism by such 
 persons is wanting, yet I conceive what many protestant writers do yield, 
 when they are pressed by the Papists to shew the calling of their first re- 
 formers ; that after an universal corruption the necessity of the thing doth 
 justify the persons that reforme though wanting an ordinary regular call- 
 ing, will justify in such a case both the lawfulnesse of a Minister's baptiz- 
 ing, that hath not been rightly baptized himself, and the sufficiency of that 
 baptism to the person so baptized. And this very thing that in case where 
 a baptized minister cannot be had, it is lawful for an unbaptized person to 
 baptize, and his baptism is valid, is both the resolution of Aquinas and of 
 Zanchius, and eminent protestant. Quceritur an is possit baptizare eos, quos 
 ad Christum convertit, cum ipse nunquam fuerit baptizatus baptismo aquce? 
 non dubito qtim possit, &" vicissim, tit ipse ab alio exillis a se conversis baptize- 
 tur. Ratio est: quia minister est verbi, a Chrislo extraordinem excitatus: eoque 
 tit talis minister, protest cum Ecclesiolae consensu symistam constituere £f ab eo 
 ut baptizetur cttrare. [It is asked whether a man may baptize those whom 
 he has converted to Christ when he himself is unbaptized? I doubt not 
 
 152 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 153 
 
 but that he may and withal provide that he himself be baptized by one of 
 those converted by him. The reason is because he is a minister moved 
 extraordinarily of Christ; and so as such a minister may, with the consent 
 of that small church, appoint one of the communicants, and provide that 
 he be baptized by him.] Whereby," says Mr. Tcmbes, "you may perceive 
 that this is no new truth that an unbaptized person may in some case bap- 
 tize another, and he baptize him, being baptized of him." 
 
 Baillie also charged Tombes with carelessness in not having 
 been baptized himself, although preaching the gospel and per- 
 haps baptizing others — nay, for many years debating and de- 
 fending Baptist position with all his learned ability ; and it was 
 not until after 1652, under the pressure of Baillie's charge, that 
 Tombes was himself immersed. (Ibid., p. 18, Sect. XIII.) It 
 would seem among other reasons for his delay that at first he 
 was not fully persuaded as to a proper "administrator;" but 
 after having reached the above conclusion that an unbaptized 
 person moved by Christ to preach and convert others was a_ 
 proper administrator of baptism, it seems strange that he de- 
 layed observance of the rite so long as to himself. Tombes, 
 like Jessey, Spilsbury and some others, was an open communion- 
 ist, believing that the church was before baptism ; and he went 
 so far as to assume that an unbaptized person could partake of 
 the Lord's Supper (An Apology, &c, London, 1646, pp. 53,54), 
 as well as that an unbaptized person could administer baptism. 
 From all this it is evident that Tombes rejected the theory of an 
 unbroken succession of Christ's church, ministry or ordinances, 
 or the theory that the validity of the church and its ministry de- 
 pended upon baptismal succession. He takes for granted that 
 adult immersion had been lost, and that its continuance could 
 not be proved ; and he planted himself upon the great Baptist 
 position at that time which claimed the right to restore the church 
 ministry and ordinances of Christ, being lost. He wrote his 
 " Apology" in 1645, an d his "Addition" to that apology in 1652. 
 He was a very learned man and well acquainted with Baptist 
 polity and history in the Kingdom — had been all about and 
 among the Baptists of England and had been in constant con- 
 troversy with the Pedobaptists, besides being in high position 
 with the State — and yet, in 1652, he bases his theory of the right 
 of an unbaptized person to baptize, upon the premise that adult 
 immersion could not be proved as having had any continuance 
 
154 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in England. Surely if there had been such a continuance — if 
 there had been a Baptist or a Baptist church at that iime having 
 such a claim — such men as Tombes, Spilsbury, Lawrence, Kiffm, 
 Barber, Hutchinson, Collins and the like would have found out 
 the fact and have emphasized it. Tombes had no hesitation in 
 retorting upon Pedobaptist controversialists — such as Cragge, 
 Baxter, Marshall and others, who charged that Baptist immer- 
 sion was a new thing in England — that infant baptism was an 
 innovation and comparatively a new thing as then advocated. 
 He regarded believers' baptism, adult immersion, as the "old 
 way" — just as all the Baptists of his time claimed ; but, like all 
 the rest, he admitted that it had been lost under the reign of 
 Antichrist, that its continuance could not be proved, and that it 
 was a "new-found truth;" and upon this fact, like all the rest, 
 he based his argument from the Scriptures of the right of true 
 believers to restore it — and he is so quoted by Crosby, who 
 wrote the first history of the English Baptists who revived the 
 ancient practice of immersion. 
 
 In his work (Antipedobaptism, &c. , London, 1652, p. 260) 
 he writes an Introduction addressed to Lord General Cromwell, 
 Chancellor of the University of Oxford, of which he was an 
 alumnus; and, on page 2, says: 
 
 "It were too long to tell your Excellency what devices Satan hath used 
 to hinder the restoring of the ordinance of Baptism, not only by those who 
 are rigid asserters of Infant Baptism, but also of others, who of their own 
 heads, without the least warrant from holy Scripture, do most presump- 
 tuously and dangerously evacuate, & many of them contemptuously de- 
 ride the plain and holy institution of the Lord Jesus. The most eminent 
 opposition to the work of restoring the right use of water-baptism*neces- 
 sary to an orderly forming of Christian Churches, hath been by those 
 learned men, who maintain still by their arguings and colorable pretenses 
 the corrupt innovation of Infant baptism." 
 
 Here is an example of Tombes' stigma of "innovation" upon 
 infant baptism while at the same time he vindicates the restoring 
 of believers' immersion — that is, the going back to the "old," 
 but "new found," way which, though restored, was not an in- 
 novation as was infant baptism which he says to Baxter (Prae- 
 cursor, London, 1652, p. 94), originated in the "third age," 
 and that "the conceit of peculiar privilege to infants of believ- 
 ers is a late innovation." 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 155. 
 
 In his Praecursor (pp. 48, 49) he replies to Baxter, who 
 charges him with being a "Sect-Master," where he says : 
 
 "Nor have I baptized (save one nearly related to me) but where I was 
 chosen a preacher ; where I conceived myself bound to baptize (by Christ's 
 Rule, Mat. 28:19) those disciples to whom I preached" — 
 
 that is, during the period he was himself unbaptized — and thus 
 we see Tombes' agreement with Spilsbury and others who 
 claimed that, in restoring immersion, an unbaptized administra- 
 tor could baptize those to whom he preached according to 
 Christ, Matt. 28:19, the usual Scripture proof to which all the 
 Baptists of that day referred for their right to restore Christ's 
 lost ordinance. Further on (p. 49) he refers to Mr. Jessey's de- 
 termination (Storehouse of Provision, &c, London, 1650, p. 
 101) to practice open communion in order to procure more favor 
 towards immersion as a restored ordinance, and gives the same 
 reason for the same practice as advocated by himself, namely, 
 "because men are so possessed with the restoring of baptism, as 
 if it were an error, schisme, a practice accursed of God, that 
 conscientious timorous men do of themselves shew us, and 
 others furiously oppose us." In his Catechism (London, 1659, 
 pp. 1-3), Tombes says: 
 
 "For a more facile understanding of the Truth than by reading larger 
 Tracts is this Compendium, in a manner of Catechism composed and pub- 
 lished at this time . . . Which I have thought necessary to be done, be- 
 cause of the importance of restoring right baptism" — 
 
 that is, believers' immersion. 
 
 It-is clear that Tombes takes for granted that immersion was 
 lost in England before its restoration in 1640-41 — that he re- 
 garded it as having been restored after a "universal corruption," 
 and when "no continuance of adult baptism could be proved," 
 and if there was a man in England who knew what he was talk- 
 ing about and could have proved such a continuance if it had 
 existed, it was the great Dr. John Tombes whom Crosby selects 
 as a witness to the "last method of restoring true baptis?n." He 
 lived in Bewdly, Oxford, Bristol and London — held controver- 
 sies at Rosse, Abergavenny, Hereford and other places — trav- 
 eled all over England — from 1641 to 1676 wrote extensively — 
 and if any Baptist author of the 17th century could or should 
 
156 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 have known whether or not adult immersion was practiced in 
 England before 1641, it was the learned Dr. Tombes. 
 
 The last great witness cited as such by Crosby was Henry 
 Lawrence, who is also cited by the Bampfield Document in 
 proof of the fact that the English Baptists restored "baptism by 
 immersion when that practice had been so long disused that 
 there was no one who had been so baptized to be found." He 
 is certainly a good witness twice cited for the purpose now in 
 hand. Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 105, 106) quotes him as "another 
 learned Baptist, who has excellently defended the true baptism 
 and the manner of reviving it in these later times." Lawrence (Of 
 Baptism, &c, Rotterdam, 1646, p. 407) says: 
 
 "It cannot be reasonably objected, that he that baptizeth should 
 necessarily be himself a baptized person, for though ordinarily it will be 
 so, yet it is not necessary to the ordinance, no more than it is simply neces- 
 sary to a church state, that the members be baptized, for not the personal 
 baptism of him that administers, but the due commission he hath for bap- 
 tizing, is alone considerable to make him a true minister of baptism ; and 
 here that expression holds not, one cannot give what he hath not, as a 
 man cannot teach me that wants knowledge himself, because no man 
 gives his own baptism, but conveys as a public person that which is given 
 us by Christ. A poor man that hath nothing of his own, may give me 
 gold, that is, the money of another man, by virtue of being sent for that 
 purpose ; so if any man can show his commission, the writing and seal of 
 him that sent him, it is enough here, else what would become of the 
 great Baptizer, John the Baptist, who had a fair commission to baptize, 
 but was not himself baptized that we read of, or if he should be, which 
 cannot be affirmed, yet the first Baptizer whoever he was, must in the 
 time of his first administration be unbaptized." 
 
 Lawrence differed from Smyth and the Anabaptists generally 
 upon the point that baptism constituted the church. On the 
 contrary he assumes that the church comes first and that the min- 
 istry or the ordinances are made or administered by the church. 
 His definition of a church is this: "An assembly of saints, knit 
 together to a fellowship with Christ their head"; and his idea is, 
 in the restoration of baptism where lost, that believers should 
 first be knit together in fellowship and then proceed to set 
 up a ministry and administer the ordinances by church au- 
 thority. This does not exclude the theory of an unbaptized 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 157 
 
 administrator baptizing in the extraordinary case of restoring the 
 lost ordinance; but Lawrence would organize the church of be- 
 lievers first and then begin the administration of the rite of bap- 
 tism, by commissioning a ministry for the purpose. Ordinarily, 
 he says, this will be the case, any way, that is, after the ordi- 
 nances are once restored. 
 
 There is another author quoted by Crosby, though not for the 
 purpose, who witnesses nevertheless to the truth of history on 
 this point. I allude to Thomas Grantham (Apology for the 
 Baptized Believers, 1674), cited by Crosby (Vol, IV., p. xii. , 
 Preface). Grantham says: 
 
 " Thus we grant, that the Church of England is no less zealous for the 
 doctrine of baptism than ourselves, yet it is apparent to us, that she has 
 accidentally lost this holy ordinance, both in respect to the subject and 
 manner of it, and in the due use and end of it, which was 
 not appointed nor fitted to receive new-born infants into the church 
 militant. And by this unwarrantable change, she has defaced the state, 
 and lost the praise of a true church, because she has not kept this 
 ordinance as it was delivered by Christ, and his apostles, but rather sup- 
 pressed it, and much oppressed those that labor to restore it to its due use 
 and practice in all the churches ; which is a great aggravation of all 
 these her errors in faith and practice concerning second baptism." 
 
 This testimony is in perfect keeping with Crosby's position 
 that the English Church lost immersion, 1600 A. D., and that 
 the Baptists restored it 1640-41, prior to which time it "had 
 been for some time disused" in England — "so long disused," 
 says the Bampfield Document, "that there was no one who had 
 been so baptized to be found" — "none" says the Kiffin Manu- 
 script, "having then so practiced in England to professed be- 
 lievers." 
 
 In this chapter I have not touched upon any witness em- 
 ployed, except by Crosby, who goes to establish the fact that 
 the English Baptists restored immersion at a given time, and that 
 that time must have been 1640-41. Crosby was a thorough 
 believer in the fact that the English Baptists had wrought a 
 reformation from 1609 to 1641 in the restoration of the church 
 and in its ministry and ordinances ; and he elaborately describes 
 the revival of immersion by these English Baptists about 1640-41 . 
 He closes his account by showing that the Baptist "beginning" 
 
158 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 in England had been "well defended" by able Baptist writers 
 "upon the same principles on which all other protestants built 
 their reformation." (Vol. I., p. 107). On p. 299, Vol. IV., 
 he refers back to the subject when, in 1691, the Baptists under 
 Keach were trying to restore the ordinance of "singing' in the 
 churches against great opposition, when he says : 
 
 " It must be confessed, that reformation is, and ever was, an hard and 
 difficult work ; and no easy thing to restore lost ordinances, especially 
 such as have been for many years neglected, and strangely corrupted. ; 
 which is manifest with respect to the ordinance of baptism." 
 
 Crosby refers (Vol. IV., pp. 292-294) to another controversy 
 among Baptists about 1675 regarding the "maintainance" of 
 ministers in which Keach took the affirmative against others 
 opposed to reformation on this point ; and Crosby says : 
 
 " Even from the very beginning of the Baptist churches vs. England 
 several of their teachers had been tradesmen, and continued in their 
 secular employment, after they were ordained to the ministry." "The 
 pride and luxury of the clergy, &c." says Crosby, "did not a little con- 
 tribute to their [the Baptist churches] running into this opinion, as it had 
 the Lollards and Wyckliffeites before them." 
 
 On pp. 290 and 291, Vol. IV., about the year 1674, Crosby 
 alludes to another controversy regarding the "laying on of 
 hands" in baptism, opposed by Keach, in which he says : 
 
 " These things occasioned several treatises to be wrote on each side, 
 and had been controverted among Baptists even since th.&\r first forming 
 themselves into distinct churches." 
 
 On p. 207, Vol. IV., Crosby claims to "having traced the 
 History of the English Baptists from their origin" ; and he claims 
 in the above extracts that their churches had a "beginning" in 
 England after the "Lollards and Wyckliffeites before them," and 
 that they wrought a "reformation" in the restoring of lost 
 ordinances such as baptism, maintainance of ministers, singing 
 in the churches and the like. He does not go beyond the year 
 1611-1633 to find the origin of Baptist churches; and all their 
 reformation of ordinances which was gradual he refers to periods 
 later than their origin. 
 
 With the Jessey Records and his witnesses, as the basis of 
 his history, there can be no doubt that Crosby establishes the 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 159 
 
 fact that the English Baptists originated their churches and 
 ministry from 161 1 to 1633, and that they reformed further in 
 the mode of baptism and other things from 1640-41 onward. 
 Vol. L, pp. 95-107, Vol. IV., p. 207, pp. 292-294, with 
 Vol. II., Preface, pp. ii-liv. cannot be otherwise interpreted. 
 Ivimey claims that the date of restoring immersion is unknown. 
 He seems to think the movement did not apply to all the Baptists, 
 especially the General Baptists. Nevertheless he is confused, 
 and he does not change the plain affirmation of Crosby that this 
 restoration of immersion did occur by "two" different "methods" 
 by the English Baptists without distinction. Evans evidently 
 agrees with Crosby. Armitage is only of opinion that all the 
 Anabaptists did not practice affusion before i64i,and that some 
 of them immersed ; but he seems to base his proof only on 
 Leonard Busher's definition and Featley's tract, neither of 
 which sustains his thesis as we shall more fully see. With the 
 Jessey Records, Hutchinson, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence and 
 Grantham, Crosby makes out his case ; and with the Bampfield 
 Document and the other testimonies already and yet to be 
 examined the case seems established beyond contradition. It 
 is hard to see how a more than probable case at least could be 
 more fully settled than by Crosby's own witnesses and his own 
 conclusions. 
 
 Dr. Toulmin in his Supplement to NeaPs History of the Puri- 
 tans (Vol. III., p. 543) says: 
 
 " In our Supplemental pages to the reign of James I. we have said that 
 the first English Baptists, on embracing their discriminating opinions, sent 
 over Mr. Blunt to Amsterdam to receive baptism [immersion] from the 
 Dutch Baptists. This step was, however, looked upon by the more judi- 
 cious, and the greater number of the English Baptists as a needless trouble 
 and proceeding from an old popish doctrine of a right to administer the 
 sacrament by an uninterrupted succession. For though the true practice 
 of baptism [by immersion] was, in their opinion, lost, they judged that it 
 might be revived, and a reformation begun, by an unbaptized person bap- 
 tizing others." [Crosby, Vol. I., p. 148, 9.) 
 
 Toulmin's construction of Crosby's language is exactly correct. 
 Not only does the Kiffin Manuscript declare the fact that Blunt 
 was sent to Holland for immersion because there were none who 
 so practiced in England, but the "greatest number and the 
 
160 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 more judicious of the English Baptists" restored baptism upon 
 this theory also — that is, by an unbaptized administrator — be- 
 cause it was "lost" as Toulmin construes Crosby who himself 
 says that * 'immersion [in England] had for some time been dis- 
 used." This is another historic opinion in confirmation of the 
 fact that the Spilsbury method of restoring immersion, 1640-41, 
 was the ''last method" as distinguished from the Blunt, or "former 
 method" in the sequence of time. 
 
 Although Neal (Vol. III., pp. 173, 174) errs as to the date of 
 the first secession of the Baptists from the Puritans, 1633, under 
 Spilsbury and assigns it to 1638 under Jessey, yet he confirms the 
 fact of the Kifhn Manuscript to which he refers (MS. penes me.) 
 in the following statement that these Baptists renounced their for- 
 mer baptism and adopted immersion according to the "former 
 method" of restoration mentioned by Crosby. Neal says of the 
 Particular Baptists : 
 
 "They separated from the independent congregation [the Jacob-La- 
 throp] about the year 1638, and set up for themselves under the pastoral 
 care of Mr. Jesse (as has been related) and having renounced their former 
 baptism, they sent over one of their number [Mr. Blunt] to be immersed 
 by one of the Dutch anabaptists of Amsterdam, that he might be qualified 
 to baptize his friends in England after the same manner. A strange and 
 unaccountable conduct! for unless the Dutch anabaptists could derive 
 their pedigree in an uninterrupted line from the apostles, the first reviver 
 of this usage must have been unbaptized, and consequently, not capable of 
 communicating the ordinance to others." 
 
 Neal clearly implies that the Particular Baptists after renounc- 
 ing their sprinkling received from their Puritan ancestors, sent 
 Blunt to Holland for immersion which he says upon Blunt's re- 
 turn was communicated to Blacklock who "dipped the rest of 
 the society, to the number of fifty-three" in "1644" — just six 
 years after their secession under Jessey in 1638! As we have 
 seen, Neal terribly blunders in his dates and in some of his facts, 
 in his use of the Kiffin Manuscript; but he is clear in the main 
 conclusion that immersion among the Baptists of England origi- 
 nated with the Particular brethren in 1640-41 which he carex 
 lessly substitutes by the date 1644. Neal and his editor Toulmin 
 together (181 7) properly relate the "two methods" of restoring 
 immersion by the "English Baptists," according to Crosby; and 
 
Crosby's Witnesses. 161 
 
 they both agree in the fact that both methods were based upon 
 the absence of immersion in England — that it was "lost" — and 
 that the Particular brethren vainly sought to restore it by succes- 
 sion from Holland while the Baptists in general restored it by an 
 unbaptized administrator. 
 
 Again, Neal is astonished at the attempt of the Particular Bap- 
 tists to secure immersion by succession from the Dutch Baptists; 
 for he implies the opinion that the Dutch Baptists had no such 
 succession. He was right, since Blunt was sent to the Col- 
 legiants, who themselves had restored immersion in 1620, and 
 to whom Crosby refers as having done so when he says: "Others 
 were for sending to those foreign Protestants that had usedimmer- 
 sion for some time" — exactly the reverse of his expression with 
 regard to England, where he says that, since 1600, "immersion 
 had for some time been disused." By the phraseology, "had used" 
 for "some time" Crosby implies the opinion that the Dutch Bap- 
 tists had lately restored immersion, just as now the Baptists were 
 proposing to do in England, where "for some time" it had been 
 "disused." This no doubt was the opinion of the "greatest 
 number and the more judicious of the English Baptists'' whom 
 Crosby represents, at the very time, as protesting against Blunt's 
 deputation to Holland as "needless trouble" for the very rea- 
 son that his movement "proceeded from the old popish doctrine 
 of succession which neither the Church of Ro??ie, nor the Church 
 of England, much less the modern Dissenters, could prove to be 
 with them." Hence Crosby represents this "greatest number" 
 of the English Baptists as affirming the Old Smyth-Helwys prin- 
 ciple (Persecution for Religion Judged, &c, p. 41) and prac- 
 ticing accordingly, "that after a general corruption of baptism, 
 an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize and so begin a 
 reformation." It is here implied that the deputation of Blunt to 
 Holland was a movement well known to the great body of the Eng- 
 lish Baptists, that they protested against it as "needless trouble," 
 and that they rejected this "former method" of restoring immersion 
 by adopting the second or "last method" of self-originating it by 
 an unbaptized administrator. This is Crosby's testimony ; and 
 he is strongly confirmed by Neal (1722) who read the Kiffin 
 Manuscript before Crosby wrote his history, and by his editor, 
 Toulmin (181 7), who infers that immersion was lost and so re- 
 garded by the "greatest number and the more judicious of the 
 
162 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 English Baptists," who restored it by the method of self-origina- 
 tion through unbaptized administrators. 
 
 So far as my investigation of Crosby's witnesses, and of many 
 other corroborating witnesses not mentioned by Crosby, goes, I 
 find him correct. He seems to be thoroughly honest and un- 
 partisan in his statements of Baptist history. He does not 
 always give dates. He blunders sometimes in minor points. 
 He deals summarily, if not evasively, in a few matters of em- 
 barrassing controversy ; but upon the whole Crosby is thoroughly 
 reliable with the material he had in hand. An article in the 
 Dictionary of National Biography (Vol. 13, p. 212) regards 
 Crosby as ''trustworthy" in matters of fact; and all the his- 
 torians, such as Brooke, Hanbury, Barclay, Evans, Ivimey, 
 Toulmin and many others who touch upon Baptist history quote 
 Crosby as authority. He was not a very learned man, and did 
 not have all the facts of early English Baptist history now in hand; 
 but he dealt honestly with what he had ; and in the matter of 
 restoring immersion by the English Baptists, 1640-41, he is 
 being more and -more thoroughly confirmed by every new inves- 
 tigation. We do not now need Crosby to prove this fact; but I 
 have used Crosby at length because he is a Baptist historian — 
 and the first. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1 64 1, A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 EDWARD BARBER AND PRAISEGOD BAREBONE. 
 
 The earliest Baptist author who wrote defensively on the sub- 
 ject of Dipping was Edward Barber, 1641 (O. S.) or 1642 
 (N. S.). His tract, entitled: "A Small Treatise of Baptisme, or 
 Dipping," is the first polemic of the kind among Baptists; and 
 this tract originated about the same time that the English Baptists 
 restored immersion just at the close of a long imprisonment of 
 the author for his utterances at a little earlier date upon the sub- 
 ject of "infant baptism." The Anabaptist contention before 
 1640-41 was believers' as opposed to infant baptism — inveterate 
 and consistent; and the same determined contention was main- 
 tained after that date with the new phase of dipping added. 
 Nowhere, with the exception of occasional utterances which 
 taught that immersion was baptism, do the Anabaptists introduce 
 any discussion or defense of immersion as the exclusive form of 
 baptism until after 1640-41. Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury 
 and none of the rest — with the exception of the single utterance 
 of Leonard Busher — contend for anything but baptism as a be- 
 lievers' rite without reference to mode, before that date; and it 
 was not until Blunt restored dipping that Barber and such writers 
 added immersion to the contention for believers' baptism as op- 
 posed to infant baptism. This fact could not have been sim- 
 ply due to the "yeare of Jubilee," 1641, by the abolition of the 
 Star Chamber and High Commission Court. To be sure this 
 event gave an enlarged liberty and impulse to Baptist growth 
 and boldness of utterance, as never before; but the defense of 
 dipping as the exclusive form of baptism among the Anabaptists, 
 before 1641, would have been known in their written and oral 
 utterances if the claim had ever existed. Crosby shows that the 
 immersion issue was added 1640-41. 
 
 163 
 
164 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The truth is that the day had passed since 1600 A. D. and in 
 fact long before that date, when immersion, even as an infant 
 rite, could have been taken for granted as the universal practice 
 of the English Church; and there is no evidence of the existence 
 of adult immersion at all since about the beginning of the 16th 
 century in the practice of any religious body in England. Pour- 
 ing or sprinkling had almost completely supplanted dipping in 
 any form; and if immersion had ever been an issue as the exclu- 
 sive form of believers' in opposition to infant baptism, it would 
 have been as squarely made and as publicly known in the conten- 
 tion before 1640-41 as after that date. The same records, whether 
 civic or ecclesiastic, before 1641, which so clearly make known 
 the teachings and practices of the Anabaptists in other respects 
 would have revealed their practice in this respect. All that the 
 records show is a long-sustained contention for believers' baptism 
 against infant baptism without regard to mode; and it is solely 
 upon this ground that persecution continuously raged against the 
 Anabaptists before 1640-41. It is not until after 1641, in 1644, 
 that the first case of civic persecution occurs against Baptists for 
 the practice of immersion when Laurence Clarkson was imprisoned 
 in the county of Suffolk, England, for that offense (Crosby, Vol. 
 I., p. xv., Preface; Ivimey, Vol. II., p. 561). The second case 
 was that of Henry Denne for the same offense, 1646, at Spalding, 
 Lincolnshire, England — so far as I know. (Crosby, Vol. I., p. 
 
 3°5-) 
 
 Hence Edward Barber's Treatise would seem within itself a 
 
 probable evidence of the recent restoration of immersion among 
 the Baptists of England, 1641. The Tract does not primarily 
 claim to have been written for the purpose of showing this fact ; 
 but it seems to imply that fact (1) from the date of its origin, (2) 
 from some expressions in the treatment of the subject under con- 
 sideration, and (3) from what is distinctly confessed in reply to 
 Praisegod Barebone, in the latter part of the Treatise, with re- 
 gard to the very recent adoption of immersion among the Bap- 
 tists of England as charged by P. B. In the beginning of this 
 tract (The Preface) Barber speaks of the general ignorance in the 
 midst of the abundance of the knowledge of the gospel, espe- 
 cially among the ministry, "of that glorious principle, True 
 Baptisme or Dipping" and then he speaks of himself as having 
 been raised up, amongst others, "a poor Tradesman, to devulge 
 
Edward Barber and Praisegod Barebone. 165 
 
 this glorious Truth to the world's censuring."* He had not made 
 such an utterance before, although imprisoned eleven months for 
 his defense of believers' baptism against infant baptism — from 
 which, in 164 1-2, he had just been released; and it is just in the 
 juncture with the restoration of immersion, 1640-41, that he 
 makes another but a new divulgence, namely, that "Dipping" is 
 baptism. He implies this further on in this introduction when he 
 says : 
 
 "In like manner lately, those that profess and practice the dipping of 
 Jesus Christ are called and reproached with the name of Anabaptists, al- 
 though our practice be no other [not has been] than what was instituted by 
 Christ himself, &c." 
 
 This Preface seems to imply the newness of the practice, not 
 the truth, of "dipping" in the mind of Barber. The general 
 ignorance of .the ministry on this particular subject at this partic- 
 ular time — the specific emphasis of the fact that he was just raised 
 up to "devulge" this "glorious truth" at this juncture — the pe- 
 culiar reference to the certainty of the censure of the world then 
 in the embrace of infant sprinkling — the allusion to the reproach 
 that had "lately" fallen upon the Anabaptists for the profession 
 and practice of dipping — all this has the appearance of something 
 new in Barber's defense of "Dipping" as the late practice of an 
 old truth among Anabaptists. The great purpose of Barber's 
 Treatise is a defense of believers' baptism as opposed to infant 
 baptism; but he adds "Dipping" as the exclusive mode to the 
 contention with such fresh emphasis, and under such form of 
 expression, as to imply something newer or of later practice 
 among the Anabaptists, in his mind. 
 
 This fact is made much clearer in the conclusion of his 
 Treatise in reply to P. B.'s "objections." In order that this fact 
 may be made apparent — namely, that Barber probably had in 
 mind the recent restoration of immersion when he wrote this 
 Treatise — I will reproduce the "objections of P. B." which seem 
 to explain the relation of Barber's tract to P. B.'s contention, 
 and therefore to the recent introduction of immersion among the 
 English Baptists. P. B., or Praisegod Barebone was an intimate 
 
 *This passage from Barber is in perfect keeping with Spilsbury, Corn well, 
 Jessey, King and others who claim that immersion was a "discovery," a "reve- 
 lation" from God to the Baptists in the "latter age." Dr. Whitsitt has been 
 unjustly criticized for the "word "discovery" (invention), and yet this was the 
 very word of the 17th Century Baptist writers. 
 
166 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 friend of some of the Anabaptists. He was at the head of one 
 of the divisions of the Jessey Church when the separation of 
 1640 took place under the agitation of the Blunt movement with 
 which he was well acquainted. In the spirit of friendly remon- 
 strance, as his Epistle Dedicatory intimates, he seems to have 
 written his pamphlet (A Discourse Tending to Prove the Bap- 
 tisme in or under the Defection of Antichrist to be the Ordinance 
 of Jesus Christ, &c, London, 1642); and being held in the very 
 highest historic esteem as a good and able man, his reliability as 
 a writer cannot be doubted. Addressing himself to the nick- 
 named Anabaptists, as he calls them, he says (p. 3) : 
 
 •'But the way of new Baptizing, lately begun to be practiced by some, 
 supposing themselves, and so others, not to have bin baptized with the 
 Baptisme of Christ, hath no ground for its practice, but the cessation of 
 the Church, and Baptisme with it, as not remaining in the world. That 
 they are utterly ceased where Antichrist prevailed to exalt himselfe, their 
 practice doth fully declare ; and that it is so they take for granted and in- 
 deed." 
 
 On page 5 he says again : 
 
 "But now further Baptisme being lost and fallen out of the world and 
 an Idoll and likenesse come in the roome of it, the Church being ceased, 
 to whom Christ gave his power : persons not having their Baptisme of 
 Jesus Christ, but being unbaptized, all which the opinion and practice of 
 New beginning Baptisme supporteth to be most true and certain, and 
 therefore do ground their proceedings. I infer hereupon, that it is, and 
 ever shall be found unlawful and without warrant for any person, or per- 
 sons whatever, to attempt, or goe about the raising, erecting up of it 
 againe, unless the said persons have speciall and particular warrant from 
 heaven and a Commission, as John the Baptist had. The Jewes (though 
 blind) could see this, that none but a Christ, a Moses, or Elias, or Prophet 
 from heaven might do this; so as there being none such to be found to 
 restore and newly erect this Ordinance fallen out of the world, for any 
 other to goe about the raising of it (as some please to term it) they shall 
 but raise it from the bottomlesse pit — Commission being wanting in the 
 actors of it, it shall be but only earthly and from beneath. And it being 
 asked of these as the Jewes asked of John his Baptisme, whether it were from 
 heaven or men ? It must needs be answered of Men, for no commission 
 can any shew to raise Baptisme thus fallen out of the world; nor to Bap- 
 tize themselves or others, being themselves unbaptized." 
 
Edward Barber and Praisegod Barebone. 167 
 
 Barebone states precisely the position of the Anabaptists of 
 1642; and he states precisely the objection of the Pedobaptists 
 of his day. In principle and without regard to mode this was 
 the controversy between Smyth, Helwys and Morton on the one 
 side, and Robinson, Clyfton and others on the other side, from 
 1 609-1 1 and onward; but now the controversy, since 1640-41, 
 takes on an additional phase — the way and manner of new bap- 
 tizing, as mentioned by Spilsbury. Hear Barebone again. He 
 says (ibid, pp. 12, 13) : 
 
 "But now very lately some are mightily taken, as having found out a 
 new defect in the baptisme, under the defection, which maketh such a 
 mdlitie of Baptism, in their conceit, that it is none at all, and it is con- 
 cerning the manner of baptizing, wherein they have espied such a default, 
 as it maketh an absolute nullity of all persons' baptisme, but such as have 
 been so baptized, according to their new discovery, and so partly as before in 
 regard of the subject, and partly in regard of so great default in the manner. 
 They not only conclude, as is before sayd, a nullity of their present bap- 
 tisme. And so, but addressing themselves to be baptized a third time, after 
 the true way and manner they have found out, which they account a 
 precious truth. The particular of their opinion and practice is to Dip : 
 and that persons are to be dipped, all and every part to be under the water, 
 for if all the whole person be not under the water, then they hold they are 
 not Baptized with the Baptism of Christ. As for sprinkling or pouring water 
 on the face it is nothing at all as they account, and so measuring them- 
 selves by their new thoughts as unbaptized they address themselves to take 
 it up after the manner of Dipping ; but truly they want [lack] a Dipper 
 that hath authority from heaven, as had John whom they please^ to call a 
 Dipper, of whom it is sayd that it might be manifested his Baptisme was 
 from heaven. A man can receive nothing, that is, lawful authority or 
 power to Baptize, unlesse it be given from heaven, which I desire they 
 would be pleased to mind, and they will easily see their third baptisme is 
 from the earth and not from heaven, as John's was. And if this case be 
 further considered it will appeare at the most to be but a defect in the 
 manner, and a coming short in the quantity of the Element. It is a won- 
 derful thing that a mdlitie should thereof follow forthwith, of which more 
 may be seen in the same case before. Againe that the substance of an 
 Ordinance of so high a nature and great concernment should be founded 
 in the criticknesse of a word and in the quantity of an element is no less 
 marvelous to say no more. Oh but Baptisme is a Buriall as it is written, 
 
1 68 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 We are buried with him in Baptisme, etc., and we are raised up also to 
 newnesse of life. This Buriall and resurrection only Dipping can im- 
 port and hold forth." 
 
 On page 15 he adds : 
 
 " The Romanists, some of them, and some of the poore ignorant Welsh 
 do use dipping [in their infant baptism], I thinke these will not say they 
 learned this new truth of them, neither do I think they will hold their 
 Baptisme ever the truer for their dipping . . . But inasmuch as this is a 
 very new way, and the full growth of it, and setting is not yet known, if it 
 be to themselves, yet not to me and others: I will forbeare to say further 
 to it." 
 
 Barebone states precisely the fact, admitted by Spilsbury, that 
 among Baptists immersion was the "new-found truth;" and he 
 states precisely the fact that "very lately" the Baptists had dis- 
 covered a "new defect" in their baptism under the defection of 
 Antichrist. The former defect under that defection was the sub- 
 ject of baptism as discovered by John Smyth and his followers, 
 and still urged as the principle upon which Baptists reformed, 
 irrespective of mode; but the "new defect" under this defection 
 was the mode of baptism which was sprinkling, and which they 
 had recently changed to immersion — about "two or three 
 yeares," Barebone says, in 1643, in his "Reply" to R. B. and E. B. 
 (p. 18) which would properly fix the time at 1640-41. More 
 than this, Barebone confirms the statement of Pedobaptist posi- 
 tion by Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 96, 97), namely, that the adoption 
 of immersion by the Baptists of England now nullified other 
 forms of baptism as formerly the adoption of believers' baptism 
 (without regard to mode) nullified the subject of infant baptism. 
 Hence he calls it a ' mew discovery" — "partly as before in regard 
 of the subject and partly [now] in regard of so great default in 
 the manner." It was a "new discovery" of the old principle 
 as Smyth and all the rest claimed "before" when they established 
 believers' baptism by affusion ; and it was now a newer discovery 
 of the old way by which they continued believers' baptism by 
 immersion. It was a "third baptism" with all the Baptists who 
 had changed to immersion — first, having been baptized in infancy 
 while in the embrace of Antichrist; secondly, having been 
 sprinkled again when they separated from the Separation and 
 became Anabaptists; thirdly, when in 1640-41 they restored 
 
Edward Barber and Praisegod Barebone. 169 
 
 immersion and became regular Baptists. Barebone is in precise 
 accord with Barber, Spilsbury, Kiffin, the Jessey Records and 
 all the rest who touch the subject — even to the word "discovery." 
 
 Under this quotation, as the other, Barebone continues his Pe- 
 dobaptist argument for succession under the defection of Anti- 
 christ. Granting the Baptist assumption that the true church 
 and baptism had been lost, they, the Baptists, could not restore 
 them without a new commission, another John the Baptist, or Eli- 
 jah, or Prophet ; and granting that they had so lost immersion, the 
 form of baptism, which they had "very lately" restored, they had 
 no "proper administrator" to "raise" that up again. "Truly," 
 says he, "they lack a dipper that hath authority from heaven, as 
 had John." 
 
 Now we can understand Barber both in his Treatise as a whole 
 and in his reply to Barebone in the latter part of his tract, where 
 he says : 
 
 "Beloved, since part of this Treatise was in Presse there came to my 
 hand a book, set forth by P. B. which could I have gotten sooner, I should 
 have answered more fully." 
 
 He goes on, under the first head of his answers to P. B., to 
 agree with him that Christ is not a Widower nor his church with- 
 out a head, although the church, or is the ministry, is not al- 
 ways visible on the earth; and that for a time they were "hid in 
 the Wildernesse." "Christ" could be "no Widower," nor his 
 "Church without a head so long as his Spouse hath a being in 
 heaven or earth." So much for the church and its ministry; 
 but under the second head of his answer he says : 
 
 "2. We grant the Ordinance being lost, none but a Christ, a 
 Moses, Elias or a Prophet from heaven can raise it ; but believ- 
 ers having Christ, the Word and Spirit have this" that is, the 
 authority of Christ, or the commission of a Moses, Elias or 
 Prophet to " raise it" or restore it; and he cites the Scriptures, 
 "Mat. 18:19,20; 11:11; Luke7:28; Rom. 10:6, 7, 8," in proof 
 of such authority, or commission, to " 'raise" again or restore the 
 "Ordinance being lost." He takes John the Baptist, who did not 
 baptize himself — who, to begin with, was an unbaptized admin- 
 istrator; and just as Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, Tombes, 
 Lawrence and others on this same question held, so Barber 
 maintains that having Christ and his Spirit, believers are com- 
 missioned by the Scriptures which represent God to begin bap- 
 
170 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 tism anew when lost, without a baptized administrator, just as 
 was John, who had God's authority to begin the ordinance at 
 first. He goes on to show that the apostasy of Israel never 
 raced the foundation of the constitution of the Jewish Church 
 based upon the seed of Abraham and circumcision so long as 
 they did this; and though circumcision was lost in the wilderness 
 it was restored, as King says, by Joshua in the Land of Canaan, 
 (Joshua 5:2-9), when the reproach of Egypt was rolled away. 
 Barber's argument, however, is that ' 'Antichrist" not only 
 "changed all other ordinances both in the Church and Ministry, 
 Worship and Government, but that he " 'destroyed the true Apos- 
 tolical institution" of baptism both as to subject and mode — as 
 seen in "the sprinkling of infants;" and that Baptists would 
 never have separated from the Church of Rome or England, nor 
 "removed this baptisme as false," if they had pursued the proper 
 design and form, just as Kiffin holds. 
 
 Barber mentions an illustration of Barebone's in which he com- 
 pares the ordinances of Christ in the hands of Antichrist to the 
 vessels of the Lord's House in the hands of the Babylonians ; 
 and as the vessels were restored to Jerusalem and used again in 
 the new Temple, so under the defection of Antichrist these ordi- 
 nances were received by the Reformers, and were still pure gold 
 and silver, and needed not to be "new cast." Barber replies 
 that while this was true of Babylon, which had not "destroyed 
 the Lord's vessels," nor made them of "Brass, Copper, Tin, or 
 Lead," Rome had so done with the ordinances of Christ; and 
 his argument is, under the figure, that they needed to be "new 
 cast." "And thus it stands," he says, "in truth for the matter 
 of Dipping of Christ, destroyed and raced out both for matter and 
 for??ie, as hath been formerly shewed, the matter being a believer 
 desiring it, the true forme, dipping them into Christ, &c. ," — pre- 
 cisely the position of Smyth, except that he uses the word 
 "washing," as before 1641, while Barber uses the word "dip- 
 ping," the usage after 1641. Hence Barber's previous assertion, 
 in reply to Barebone, that the "ordinance being lost, &c," be- 
 lievers have the Commission of Christ to restore the lost ordi- 
 nance, not simply believers' baptism as opposed to infant bap- 
 tism, but now the mode of baptism, as charged and not denied. 
 What he held for the principle revived in 1 609-1 1, he now held 
 for the mode revived in 1640-41, without the slightest repudia- 
 tion of Barebone's charge of recent introduction as contradis- 
 
Edward Barber and Praisegod Barebone. 171 
 
 tinguished from a former introduction. He grants that the ordi- 
 nance which he defines by dipping had been "raced out and de- 
 stroyed;'' he defends the right of its restoration according to the 
 Scriptures ; and he tacitly admits its very late introduction by re- 
 plying to the charge without denying it. Such a charge was too 
 serious an aspersion, if it was false, not to repudiate; .and the 
 clear implication is that Barber took it for granted. 
 
 In his "Short Reply to the frivolous Exceptions of E. B.," 
 1643, at tne close of his "Reply" to R. B., Barebone charges 
 Barber with acknowledging this fact. He says, (pp. 55,56): 
 
 " His second exception is to what I propounded, that if Baptism was 
 lost and fallen out of the world none but a Christ, a Moses, an Elias, or at 
 least a Prophet from heaven might restore, &c: To this he sayeth that he 
 granteth that an ordinance lost and fallen out of the world none but a 
 Christ, a Moses, Elias or prophet from heaven can raise it. Baptism was 
 lost he acknowledgeth, when did Christ, Moses, Elias or any Prophet 
 from heaven, come to raise it again &c; But this hee thinketh may serve, 
 believers having Christ, the Word & Spirit, so he sayth may do it, &c." 
 
 Acknowledging this without denial, acknowledges Barebone' s 
 included charge of very late introduction — just as R. B. did in 
 the same controversy. 
 
 Barebone charged that Christ was a ■ 'Widower" upon Barber's 
 theory and advised him to wait 'till Christ came again to restore 
 all things, as some held, for a proper administrator of baptism. 
 "To which I answer," says Barber, "if the want of visibility of 
 the church proveth Christ a Widower; then the state of the 
 church of which P. B. is a member, was unheard of within these 
 two hundred yeares, and so Christ a Widower, unlesse hee hold 
 the church of Rome a true church, which if he doe, how dare 
 they separate from her? If not, some of them, being loving 
 friends, holding the same Principle: how dare they raise up a state 
 before Christ come, as they say, to restore all things." Barebone 
 in his "Reply" to R. B. and E. B., p. 61, retorts: 
 
 "Well two-hundred yeares is some Antiquitie, more then two or three- 
 yeares, such as is the descent of the totall dippers in this Kingdom: hee foolishly 
 concludeth so Christ a Widower till then." 
 
 To this statement in 1643 — made twice, once to R. B. and 
 then to E. B., without denial from either or from any one else in 
 the great controversy which then prevailed, is a thorough con- 
 
172 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 firmation of the Jessey Records' date of 1640-41; and it goes 
 without saying that Barebone was not only a friendly but an hon- 
 est and capable witness who had every opportunity to know what 
 he was talking about. In searching for the character of Bare- 
 bone as a man and as a writer among the critical sketches of the 
 British Museum, I never found an intimation against his ability 
 or reliability, but the contrary; and with his bold and unchal- 
 lenged statement, 1643, concerning the recent introduction of 
 immersion, confirmed by the Jessey Records and the current 
 teaching of all the Baptist writers of that day who touched the 
 subject, I am constrained to accept his statements which are yet 
 to be more fully confirmed. 
 
 The reference of Barebone to dipping among some of the Ro- 
 manists and ignorant Welsh does not imply adult immer- 
 sion among them in 1642, but their limited continuance of 
 infant immersion down to that time. At that time we know 
 that the Roman Catholics were nowhere practicing adult 
 immersion ; and only a few places, perhaps, like Milan 
 — which has recently abandoned it — continued to practice in- 
 fant immersion, sprinkling having been almost universally 
 adopted by that church long before 1642-3. So of some of 
 the Welsh who according to Sir John Floyer (Hist. Cold Bath- 
 ing, 1722, p. 14) "had more lately left off immersion ; for," says 
 he, "some middle-aged persons have told me, That they could 
 remember their dipping in baptism." Sir John Floyer was dis- 
 cussing the disuse of infant immersion, and urging its restora- 
 tion ; and he shows that the disuse of infant immersion in Wales 
 followed later than in England. At the time Barebone wrote in 
 1642 — though not at the time Sir John Floyer wrote in 1722 — 
 "some" of the Welsh still retained infant dipping. In 1650 
 Peter Chamberlen, in reply to Thomas Bakewell's book, "The 
 Dippers Plunged in a Sea of Absurdities, &c," says: "And 
 the Winter Baptizing of Children in Wales, will sufficiently tes- 
 tifie that you foist in your own untruths, by the strength of your 
 own distracted imagination." There was no adult immersion in 
 Wales before 1641 since the first centuries; and Barebone was 
 evidently alluding to the dipping of children among some Cath- 
 olics and the ignorant Welsh. The very fact that Barebone re- 
 ferred to this continued practice among some of the Romanists 
 and poor ignorant Welsh, both Pedobaptists, as not likely to be 
 esteemed by Baptists as an example to them, implies that it was 
 
Edward Barber and Praisegod Barebone. 173 
 
 infant dipping to which Barebone was himself opposed, and 
 which had been long ago abandoned in England. Even, how- 
 ever, if he had alluded to adult immersion among the Romanists 
 and Welsh, it would not have altered the fact that the English 
 Baptists had recently changed, in 1640-41, from sprinkling to 
 immersion, Barebone himself being witness, and Barber and 
 Spilsbury both agreeing thereto. Barebone makes his assertion, 
 however, as broad as the "Kingdome" of England; and he 
 declares, in 1643, ^ at tne "totall dippers" — exclusive immer- 
 sionists— in that "Kingdome" were "only two or three yeares 
 old." Hence he could not have alluded to the Romanists and 
 Welsh as adult immersionists ; and he concedes nothing by his 
 allusion to partial dipping in warm climates. 
 
 Barebone' s book was intended as a reply to Spilsbury who took 
 up Smyth's old argument against the validity of baptism under 
 the defection of Antichrist; and Barebone only takes up the old 
 arguments and illustrations of Robinson, Clifford and others in 
 defense of baptism under the defection of Antichrist. Barber 
 copies largely the positions of Smyth, Helwys and Morton, and 
 like Spilsbury and the rest, after 1640-41, adds the mode to the 
 principle of believers' baptism, both of which had now been re- 
 stored. In his reply to Barebone in the latter part of his 
 Treatise he emphasizes the lost mode as brought in by Barebone; 
 and what he admits of the principle as lost under the defection of 
 Antichrist he admits of the mode, immersion, as being lost and 
 the right to restore it according to the Scriptures. In 1643 Bare- 
 bone, in reply to R. B., also answers Barber in the latter part of 
 his book in the same strain that he had to Spilsbury in 1642-3, 
 and as he again replied, 1644, to Spilsbury's Treatise Concerning 
 the Lawful Subjects of Baptisme, 1652, but which must have 
 been written in 1642, or else Barebone replied in 1654 
 instead of 1644. Barber makes no further answer, so far 
 as I have seen, and although" the purport of his Treatise 
 is to prove that " Christ ordained dipping for those only 
 that profess repentance and faith," as Dr. Newman says, 
 yet he incidentally assents to the recent introduction of 
 immersion by acknowledging that it was lost and by defending 
 the right to restore it. His emphasis of baptism as dipping, in 
 the light of the whole Treatise and in the light of history and 
 current Baptist authorship, cannot presuppose, as has been 
 claimed, "that dipping was at that time the commonly recog- 
 
174 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 nized usage, and presumably a usage of long standing," as well 
 shown by Dr. Newman, (Review of the Question, pp. 203-4). 
 There is not the slightest doubt that Barebone, 1642, affirms that 
 the Baptists of England had "very lately" introduced immersion 
 in England — within the last "two or three years" according to 
 Barebone, 1643— fixing tne time, 1640-41 ; and Barber is 
 right along the line of all the rest of the Baptist writers of his 
 day in acknowledging and defending the fact. This seems to be 
 his implied conviction in the beginning of his Treatise ; and it is 
 the admitted conviction in .the close. Nobody under the 
 most strained sophistry can read Barebone's book and Barber's 
 reply, and come to any other conclusion. Especially is this 
 true in the light of so much concurrent testimony to the same 
 effect at the same time from so many other sources. Barber's 
 very boldness and exuberance — his almost ostentatious use of 
 the word dipping as baptism — in the first defense of the mode, 
 and as a fresh divulgence, has the aspect of a "fresh conviction;" 
 and he is in perfect line with Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Hutchin- 
 son, the Jessey Records, Spilsbury, Kiffin, King, Tombes, 
 Lawrence, Denne, Collins and all the rest who have likewise 
 touched the subject. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164 1 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 SOME OTHER BAPTIST WITNESSES. 
 
 Having placed before the reader the evidence of Evans, 
 Crosby, Hutchinson, the Jessey Records, the Bampfleld Docu- 
 ment, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence, Grantham, Kiffin, Barber 
 and Barebone and others, which prove that the English Baptists 
 restored immersion about 1640-41, and that prior to that time 
 they must have practiced sprinkling or pouring, I now present 
 some other Baptist authorities whose testimony is quite as strong 
 and valid. 
 
 1. The earliest of these Baptist witnesses is A. Rfitor] in a 
 work, entitled: A Treatise of the Vanity of Childish Baptisme, 
 &c. , London, 1642. On page 29, Part First, he says: 
 
 "If any shall think it strange and unlikely that all the godliest Divines 
 and best Churches should be deceived in this point of baptisme, for so 
 many yeares together : Let them consider that all Christendom (except 
 here and there one, or some few, or no considerable number) was swal- 
 lowed up in grosse popery for so many hundred yeares before Luther's 
 time which was not until about 100 yeares agone. Let them also con- 
 sider how long the whole nations of England and Scotland have bin de- 
 ceived in the point of the Hierarchy untill of late, and yet they now for 
 the most part do see it to be Antichristian and abominable, and why 
 may they not likewise be deceived in this point of the Baptisme of in- 
 fants, &c." 
 
 Referring to the Second Psalm (Part II., p. 28), he says: 
 
 "This may likewise teach us, to see and bewaile the great apostasie, 
 both in faith and worship, that is brought into the world by this Childish 
 Baptisme." 
 
 175 
 
!^6 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Part First (pp. 8-12), under the second head, is devoted to 
 the proof that dipping only is baptism as opposed to sprinkling; 
 and that whoever is not dipped is not baptized — all this in 1642, 
 and soon after the introduction of immersion in England by the 
 Baptists. According to his Preface to the Reader, A. R. was a 
 recent convert from the Church of England, having been sprinkled 
 in infancy, and must have been immersed in 164 1-2. Pie writes 
 in the same strain that Barber does regarding the ignorance of 
 divines and churches — even England and Scotland in the dark- 
 ness of the Hierarchy — "untillof late," and still deceived under 
 the apostasy. S. C. (A Christian Plea for Infants Baptism e, 
 London, 1643, II. P., p. 4) replies to A. R. in the same strain 
 that P. B. does to Barber, or Spilsbury, and charges the Ana- 
 baptists with having taken up a "new baptism" by unbaptized 
 administrators — with thus holding to a church of unbaptized 
 members — and with claiming that otherwise "true baptism can 
 never be had." No doubt this was the view of A. R., as it was 
 of all other Baptists of his day; and his work is in line with all 
 the other works then among Baptists, which claimed that immer- 
 sion was "lost" in the apostasy — "swallowd up in grosse popery" 
 — and that it must be restored by unbaptized administrators, 
 according to the Scriptures. 
 
 2. In the next year, 1643, Praisegod Barebone answered a 
 work written by R. B. (A Reply to the Frivolous and Imperti- 
 nent Answer of R. B. [1642] to the discourse of P. B., London, 
 1643), an d although I sought in vain for R. B.'s work, I find 
 enough of it in P. B.'s "Reply" to make out the opinions of R. 
 B., and to show; that he was in the restoration movement. On 
 pages 2, 3, P. B. represents R. B. as holding that the succession 
 of baptism depended upon the "continuednesse of the church;" 
 and he says : 
 
 "I confesse I know none, nor do I believe that any can show any such 
 continuance." (Quoted by P. B. from R. B.'s Answer to his Treatise on 
 Baptisme, &c.) 
 
 R. B. is also represented as using the phrase: "perpetual in- 
 terrupted succession" and as denying any perpetual uninterrupted 
 succession of the church. 
 
 "Baptism he saith (p. 15) may be obtained without any such special 
 commission as had John, if an unbaptized person shall doe it." 
 
Some Other Baptists Witnesses. 
 
 177 
 
 R. B. squarely assumes that the church ceased and so bap- 
 tism ceased, and that both had been restored. P. B. (p. 17) 
 says : 
 
 "But it appeareth to be true that R. B. indeed holdeth so, that at some- 
 time lately there were no baptized persons in the World : And yet Bap- 
 tisme might be raised again well enough ;" 
 
 and R. B. cites the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:6) as the authority by 
 which, having faith, baptism, "in an extraordinary case," could 
 be restored by an unbaptized person — in precise accord with 
 Spilsbury,.who is here instanced (p. 18) as citing the case of 
 David, though not a priest, eating shewbread in the Tabernacle. 
 Observe here that R. B., a Baptist, held that "sometime 
 lately there were no baptized persons [Baptists] in the world ;" 
 and as he claimed that immersion had been restored, and tells 
 us how it was done, therefore in 1642 "baptized persons" [Bap- 
 tists] had only been "lately" in the world. P. B. (p. 18) holds 
 that R. B. dissents, in this view, "from others of his judgment," 
 and he claims that "there were baptized persons in Holland 
 [alluding to the Mennonites] of a "hundred yeares discent." 
 
 "If R. B..," says P. B., "questions their baptisme, it is much : happily 
 he may, because they practice not totall dipping : then sure it is likely, 
 the restoration [of immersion] is but two or three yeares standing, a very 
 rare business, and how rare are baptized persons [Baptists], he concludeth 
 there needs no new commission to raise it againe, we may believe him if 
 we will." 
 
 Of course, R. B. meant immersionists — not all Anabaptists. 
 On page 19, P. B. continues: 
 
 "New things are very pleasing and many are much taken with them, as 
 is R. B. with dipping, about which he taketh great pains, produceth 
 many Scriptures, and would seem to be so strong, as nothing is able to 
 withstand him . . . but sure the man is one that looketh through a 
 greene glass, he seeth all the same color, all and every of the Scriptures, 
 and examples are for total dipping the whole man in matter and burying 
 him under water ; and I appeal to the judgment of the indifferent Reader, 
 whether there be any the least syllable to any such purpose : no marvell 
 he should check me for not believing of it ; and so confidently to further 
 his fancie, and erroneous conceit, on the holy Scriptures, and which is 
 
178 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 more to hold all the churches, and Christians in the World to be unbap- 
 tized, but those two or three that have been thus totally dipped." 
 
 On page 30, he says again : 
 
 "What should be the cause R. B. hath labored so much in this matter 
 of dipping and taken notice of every particular, I leave every man free to 
 judge, for my part I take it to be as I said, It is new and the man is 
 mightily taken with it." . . . ''There is one thing in the end of this mat- 
 ter of dipping which he doth not declare himself about, Namely whether 
 he learned this new way of dipping of the Romanists and Ignorant Welsh, 
 and whether he count their Baptisme the Baptisme of Christ." ... "I 
 have spoken for the ordinance of Christ which he hath peremptorily con- 
 demned, and yet doth, denying the Baptisme of all the reformed Churches 
 & separed Churches, & also of all other Christians either Reformed or yet 
 in defection, only those two or three excepted that have within these two 
 or three years or some such short time, bin totally dipped for Baptisme, 
 by persons at the beginning unbaptized themselves." 
 
 I need not comment on these passages to show the recent in- 
 troduction of immersion by the English Baptists in 1640-41 at 
 the hands of both a Baptist and Podobaptist. This is but a speci- 
 men of the current controversy between Baptists and Pedobap- 
 tists from 1640-41 and onward to the close of the 17th century. 
 The only question of importance now is: Who was R. B.? 
 Back on pages 3, 4, Preface to the Reader, P. B. characterizes 
 R. B. as a man of "often changes" in baptism — once "confident 
 of his first baptisme" and "certainly of his second;" and he says: 
 
 " A man that had a mind to come to R. B. in his third Baptisme, before 
 a year or two spent in serious wayghing of the matter, would find happily 
 that R. B. had left his third baptisme, and by that time had taken a fourth, 
 &c." 
 
 It is clear that R. B., having been baptized in infancy, had 
 come out of the Separation as an Anabaptist by a second sprink- 
 ling, and had then adopted immersion in the 1640-41 movement. 
 P. B. taunts him with his "often changes" and suggests that he 
 might change to a fourth baptism, as many of the Anabaptists, 
 still dissatisfied with their third baptism, did, or else abandoned 
 it altogether, according to the confusion of conflicting sects, after 
 1 641. There is no evidence here that R. B. had changed to a 
 "fourth" baptism, though taunted by R. B. with the probability; 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 179 
 
 but it is difficult to determine who he was. It has been supposed 
 that he was Richard Blunt; but this is improbable, unless Blunt 
 who had sought regular baptism of the Dutch Collegiants, had 
 changed to the Spilsbury theory that "baptizednesse is not essen- 
 tial to the administrator of baptisme." But neither P. B., in this 
 discussion, nor R. B., makes any allusion to the deputation to 
 Holland for baptism, a fact P. B. well knew in Blunt's case. P. 
 B. does suggest that the Holland Mennonites had retained the 
 descent of baptism for a hundred years, by affusion, which some 
 of R. B.'s brethren still regarded as baptism and to whom the 
 Baptists might have gone for succession, but of course R. B. 
 and the new dippers rejected even Anabaptist affusion; and the 
 intimation of P. B. is that some of the English Anabaptists had 
 not yet come over to dipping — alluding, no doubt, to some of 
 the General Baptists who had not broken from Mennonite affu- 
 sion and relationship. At all events R. B. does not seem to be 
 Richard Blunt ; and he seems to have been a General Baptist 
 "dissenting from others of his judgment" as to Mennonite bap- 
 tism which Blunt and the Particular Baptists would not have con- 
 sidered at all. 
 
 There is another publication (A Briefe Answer to R. H., His 
 Booke, Entitled, The True Guide &c. , London, 1646) written by 
 R. B.; but there is nothing in this work which indicates the R. 
 B. above, or Richard Blunt. It seems to be an answer to a 
 Quaker against the position that the "Baptisme of Water" signi- 
 fies "by Scripture expression the Baptisme of the Spirit" and 
 other propositions which make it a clear cut Baptist book char- 
 acteristic of the times. On page 23, in answer to the charge of 
 "schism," he replies: 
 
 "When the church of God is restored againe from under Antichrist to 
 that primitive purity, and first patterne of Truth, he that maketh use of 
 this Scripture [2 Tim. 2:2, cited by R. H.] is in a Church way, answering 
 that patterne, and is infallibly assured of it, then he may infallibly make 
 use of this place, to declare who they are that make divisions." 
 
 In his Epistle to the Reader (pp. 1, 2) after pointing to the 
 collapse of faith under the Apostasy of Antichrist— and to those 
 who thought restitution had come from Luther's time, or from 
 Queen Elizabeth's time — he says : 
 
 "And yet we see much of that corrected of late ; and must it needs be, 
 there are no Truths left behind still undiscovered, Prophesyings in Sac- 
 
180 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 cloth ? God is not bound to restore all Truth at once, nor to a multitude, 
 but even to a few, and they perhaps despised ones, i Cor. 1:27, 28, even 
 like those Fisher-men which Christ chose." 
 
 He goes on to assume that as the "decay of truth was graduall 
 from the Apostles times, as may be sense," so the "restitution 
 would likewise be graduall ; " and he looks, as many Baptists 
 and others did in that day, for the coming of Christ for the per- 
 fect "restoration of the truth from under Antichrist." Like all 
 the Baptists of his day, he regarded the restoration movement as 
 a "discovery" from God of the lost truth; and he believed that 
 though much truth had been rediscovered — such as the true 
 church, ministry and ordinances of Christ — yet there were other 
 developments of truth to follow until the full restitution at the 
 coming of Christ, which indicated him a Fifth-monarchy man. 
 He has a little of the tone of the Seekers ; and after all he may 
 have been Richard Blunt after the dissolution of his church 
 before 1646. 
 
 3. Thomas Kilcop (A Short Treatise of Baptisme, &c, Lon- 
 don, 1642), after meeting Barebone's arguments regarding infant 
 baptism, he proceeds to answer the charge concerning the Bap- 
 tist claim that baptism had been "lost." He says (pp. 8-1 1): 
 
 "You deride us in your booke about the rise, matter, and manner of 
 baptisme, the two last are clearely proved by Scripture already, the use of 
 it being once lost, is the onely thing to clear; of that therefore a few 
 words. Our baptisme received in our infancy (being corrupted) is not- 
 withstanding true or false. If true, though corrupted (as you hold), then 
 needs must the other ordinances be true, the church also true, for nothing 
 (I conceive) is more corrupted (if so much) as baptisme, as in the first use; 
 and then it followes that you doe ill in leaving true ordinances, and true 
 church state, and should then returne againe. Ob. We shift off the cor- 
 ruptions only. Ans. Then should you goe to the root and strike at 
 the greatest corruption first, which is I conceive the subject. Your onely 
 course then would be to let your infants remaine unbaptized, and then such 
 as you and others (upon triall) judge to be in covenant, and precious in 
 God's account, you might safely baptize by virtue of your baptisme, if 
 yours be true, though corrupted, as you hold it is ; and not doing so, you 
 go a wrong way to work to root out corruption. But for my part, I be- 
 lieve Christ will at no rate own the baptizing of infants for his baptisme, 
 and therefore not true. And then it followes that it being false, is to be 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 181 
 
 renounced as well as the church state being false, and true baptisme as 
 well as true church state is to be erected ; except we turn Familists and 
 Libertines to let all alone and live loosely, which opinion is held out, for 
 ought I know, only by such as are given up to their own lusts. Ob. But 
 where is your warrant for so doing? I answer, That every Scripture that 
 gives you warrant, or any of your judgment, to erect a church state, gives 
 us the same warrant to erect baptisme, sith the one cannot be done with- 
 out the other, for none can put on Christ (that is visibly by outward pro- 
 fession) but such as are baptized into Christ, that is into the way or 
 profession of Christ, for so is the meaning. Gal. 3:29. [John Smyth.] 
 
 "So that as a certain company of you agreeing in one, may become a 
 body with evry one's mutual consent: just so might we or you take up 
 this ordinance, too, I mean if it be so that otherwise we cannot partake 
 of it (AS ONCE IT was) and also know that Christ puts no impossibilities 
 upon us, and we are nowhere so enjoyned that if we cannot know abso- 
 lutely a people that have upheld it ever since John, then not to partake of 
 it. But we are absolutely enjoined to be baptized. Mark 16: 16. Which 
 is an impossibility if that must needs be a tye. Againe, if Christ had so 
 tied us, then would you be put to a great strait, to prove that baptisme 
 that you have partakt of to be so upheld which thing I believe you can- 
 not possibly doe ; you must take the Pope's word for it or else some His- 
 toric or other which I dare not credit as I do the Bible." 
 
 Thomas Kilcop was one of the "fifty-three" baptized by 
 Blunt and Blacklock, 11 Mo., Janu. 1641; along with Thomas 
 Shepard and Thomas Gunne (baptized at the same time), and 
 with William Kifrln (probably baptized the same year later) he 
 was one of the signers of the 1644 Confession. He is one of 
 the original parties mentioned in the so-called Kiffin MS., who 
 introduced immersion in England upon the affirmation that 
 11 none had the?i so practiced in England to professed believers" ; and 
 hence his very reply here to Barebone implies the recent intro- 
 duction of immersion into England. Though a Particular 
 Baptist he makes precisely the argument to P. B. that John 
 Smyth did to Clifton — using Smyth's very language — namely, 
 that the Baptists had as much right to erect baptism anew, as the 
 Separatists had to erect a new church state; and just what Smyth, 
 under the form of affusion, did in 1609, Blunt, Blacklock, 
 Lucar, Shepard, Gunne, Kilcop and others, under the form of 
 immersion, did in 1641. It is objected that Kilcop implies that 
 it had not been necessary to restore baptism by the hypothetical 
 
182 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 clause, "if it be so that otherwise we cannot partake of it;" but the 
 parenthetical clause "(as it once was)" which follows, settles 
 the question. Nothing could be plainer than his admission that 
 baptism had been "lost" as Barebone charged that all Baptists 
 held; and Kilcop' s whole argument here is a succinct and vigor- 
 ous effort in short to prove that Baptists had a right to restore 
 immersion anew according to John Smyth's thesis. He does not 
 pretend to contradict Barebone's charge, but defends it; and he 
 here impliedly admits Barebone's further charge that "totall 
 dipping in the Kingdome" was "only two or three yeares old," 
 and that the Baptists lacked an original administrator. Kilcop is 
 exactly in line with Barber, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence and all 
 the rest ; and though baptized by Blunt with the regular baptism 
 from Holland, he here utterly excludes the slightest idea of suc- 
 cession — planting himself like a true Baptist upon the Bible as 
 his authority, and not upon history or tradition for the validity 
 of his baptism. The Blunt movement or "persuasion" is well 
 represented by the names of Shepard, Gunne, Kilcop and pos- 
 sibly Kiffin, as signers of the 1644 Confession; and by Kilcop, 
 if not Kiffin, in the literature of the time 
 
 4. From an Anabaptist Sermon (The Arraignment, Tryall 
 Conviction and Confession of Francis Deane, &c, London, 
 1643) I extract the following: 
 
 "Beloved, I am filled with much zealous joy to behold so great an 
 Assembly gathered together in this Chamber to hear me discover unto you 
 nexv Doctrine upon the receiving of a new member into our Assembly : who 
 before had only the bare rags of Adam, and baptized by the ceremony of 
 Antichrist, &c. v 
 
 After having done with the text the preacher proceeded to 
 baptize the new member, and said : 
 
 " Being come to this holy place, I desire all of you here present to take 
 notice, that this our brother is received to the River Jordan called the old 
 Foord neare Bow, and now the nezv Jordan or place of happinesse, for 
 unlesse all be thus rebaptized stark naked, and dipped as well head as 
 tayle as you are, none can be saved." 
 
 The preacher called his sermon on baptism ("Wash and be 
 Clean") "new doctrine-" and he called the place of baptism 
 "new Jordan." The title of the tract refers to the incident as 
 the Rebaptizing of a Brother at the new holy Jordan^ &c; to- 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 183 
 
 gether with the manner how they use to perform their "Anabap- 
 tisticall ceremonies" — referring no doubt to the oft repeated 
 charge of naked baptism here reported and exaggerated as hav- 
 ing been the custom of the Baptists. "The new holy Jordan, as 
 they call it, neare Bow," is applied to the same river in the same 
 vicinity by Mercurius Aulicus, 1643, the same year as follows: 
 
 "And the river Lee, which runs by Bow, wherein the new elect rebap- 
 tize themselves, and call it by the name of Jordan." 
 
 The preacher of this sermon from which I quote, if properly 
 reported, was not a sound Baptist, either in doctrine or practice; 
 but he is an illustration of the gross irregularities which, accord- 
 ing to the history of the times, characterized the recent intro- 
 duction of immersion. 
 
 5. The next witness is Francis Corn well (The New Testament 
 Ratified with the blood of the Lord Jesus &c. , London, 1645). 
 In his controversy with Whittle (p. 19) he says : 
 
 " Hence it is that we poor despised believers in Jesus Christ dipt, owne 
 Jesus the Christ to be our eternal high Priest, that manifested his love to 
 us in the Covenant of Free-grace. . . . This love discovered, caused us to 
 hearken to the voyce of Jesus our Anoynted Prophet ; for his voice is 
 lovely : And when he revealed to us, by his word and good Spirit, that none 
 was the subject of baptism ; but such as believe in the Lord Jesus the 
 Christ and repent of their dead works. When this truth was revealed, we 
 harkened to the voice of Christ onely as his sheep ought to doe, John. io. 
 and regarded no more the voyce of a stranger, the Pope, the Bishop, the 
 Priest. Nay when Christ was discovered to be our King, and that we were 
 but as Rebells, untill we did obey his Command, when he by his good 
 Spirit discovered what his commandments was, namely, that we which be- 
 lieve in Jesus Christ, must repent and be dipped in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, the love of Christ our King constrained us to arise and be dipped 
 in the name of Jesus Christ." 
 
 On page 22, in the addenda to Whittle's Answer, Corn well says : 
 
 "The Nationall churches have trodden the holy citie of believers in 
 Jesus Christ dipt under foot, neere 42 moenths ; which reckoning a day for 
 a year, may amount to neer 1260 years, Rev. 11. 2." 
 
 Corn well takes the current Baptist position of his time, that the 
 church of dipt believers (Baptist) had been lost in the Apostasy 
 of Rome for "neer 1260 years;" that God of his sovereign pur- 
 
184 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 pose and love rediscovered the visible order of the church by 
 immersion to the English Anabaptists; and that when they dis- 
 covered God's purpose and heard the voice of Christ, they ceased 
 to hear the voice of Antichrist and obeyed Christ. He clearly 
 confirms the immersion movement of 1640-41 in the very terms 
 of the ordinance restored; and emphasizes the fact that it was a 
 discovery from God to his people — as all the rest so declare. 
 Cornwell was one of the boldest and bravest leaders among the 
 Baptist ministry, suffering imprisonment for his utterances, and 
 he puts on record one of the clearest testimonies to the recent 
 introduction of immersion by the Baptists of England. 
 
 6. Henry Denne (Antichrist Unmasked in Two Treatises, 
 London, 1645, pp. 1, 2, 3). After an allusion to the Dragon of 
 Revelation standing before the Woman clothed with the Sun, 
 and after a reference to the fact that in every instance when the 
 church had travailed in birth with any truth, the Ten-horned 
 Beast had ever been ready to devour the child, he says : 
 
 "Our owne experience teacheth us in these our dayes, wherein the 
 shadows begin to vanish, and the night to passe away, the Sun of Right- 
 eousnesse to draw neare unto the Horison. How many adversaries doe 
 now bestirre themselves, with policy and force to keep us (if it were possi- 
 ble) in perpetual darknesse, and to hinder the rising of the Sun in our 
 hearts. Among the rest the church is now ready to be delivered, and to 
 bring forth the Doctrine of the Baptisme of Water, raked up heretofore 
 in an imitation of Paedobaptism. The truth of the Ordinance or Institu- 
 tion of the Lord Jesus, lying covered with custome and Practice, and a 
 pretended face of Antiquity. The Lord hath been pleased at this day, to 
 put into the hearts and tongues of some, to stand up in defence of his 
 truth (against the daring Face of Error) who doe now labor, ready to be 
 delivered. But we see how many Champions 'ready armed, are come 
 forth with reviling speeches and rayling accusations, to dash the counte- 
 nance of this new born Babe.'''' 
 
 The clear implication is that Denne here refers to the Baptist 
 movement, 1640-41 and onward, to restore believers' immersion 
 — the Doctrine of the Baptisme of Water; and he calls this move- 
 ment a "NEW BORN BABE" just delivered amid the throes 
 and agonies of the church — and still being threatened with 
 destruction. This ordinance had been covered up, lost, under 
 the "pretended face of Antiquity" by "Romish custom and 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 185 
 
 practice;" but recently it had been restored and was still being 
 restored in 1645. Hence he calls it new — "a new born babe;" 
 and he is in perfect accord with Barber, Spilsbury, Cornwell and 
 all the rest so far mentioned in this discussion. However differ- 
 ent the phraseology of these writers on the subject, they all agree 
 as to the facts of a recent restoration of baptism by the Baptists 
 of England — "heretofore" practiced even by Anabaptists after 
 the fashion of "Pedobaptism," by sprinkling or pouring! 
 
 7 . Christopher Blackwood ( Apostolicall Baptism: Or a Sober 
 Rejoinder, To a Treatise written by Mr. Blake &c, 1645). On 
 page 2, To the Godly Reader, he uses this phraseology: 
 
 "The true Baptisme of Jesus Christ, against the Innovation (to say no 
 more) of Infants Baptisme." 
 
 Like Tombes, Blackwood regarded infant baptism an innova- 
 tion of the early ages upon the baptism of Christ; and in the 
 matter of giving it to the children of believing parents it was re- 
 garded as a late innovation — but not as late as the novelty of dip- 
 ping among the Baptists of England. On page 12, he says: 
 
 " Now because the doctrine of dipping savors so of Novelism ; not to in- 
 stance in histories, without difficulty attainable ; Peruse the book of Mar- 
 tyrs, Edition 7 [in which he refers Blake to Augustin and Paulinus bap- 
 tizing in rivers] not in hallowed Fonts &c." 
 
 This is as near as he brings any example of believers dipping 
 in England to the period in which he wrote ; and he here speaks 
 of dipping as a novelty in his time. In reply to Blake's claim 
 that the ordinances have been retained under the defection of 
 Antichrist and under the implied position that if this was not true 
 there could be no restoration of baptisme, Blackwood (p. 77) says : 
 
 " I answer, suppose all Ministry and baptism were condemned, both 
 theirs and yours (to use your words) yet is there no difficulty in setting up 
 aright ministry and baptism, the way whereto is; I. For believers to con- 
 sider that they are the subjects to receive all ordinances in time of an 
 apostasy, 2. That these believers gather themselves together, 3. That they 
 make profession of their faith one to another, 4. That they consent and 
 agree together, to worship God in all his wayes, that is or shall be revealed to 
 them, 5. That they chuse out a Pastor (if he may be had) that may admin- 
 ister all ordinances to them. For Christ's promise of the gates of hell, 
 not prevailing against the church or churches, against which in all ages 
 the gates of hell have prez'ailed ; but the body of Christ, or the invisible 
 
1 86 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Church, who only makes the same believing confession that Peter did: 
 Against these the gates of hell cannot prevail to make them renounce that 
 confession, which with heart or mouth, or both, they have made." 
 
 This is the clear Baptist ring of Blackwood's day. He is Jn 
 perfect accord with Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, King, 
 Barber and others. He admits the "novelism" of dipping at his 
 time. He repudiates the Pedobaptist position that if the true 
 church and baptism are lost they cannot be restored except by 
 extraordinary commission; and he gives the analysis of the 
 method of restoration according to the Scriptures — just as Smyth 
 did and all the rest after him. He also repudiates the Pedobap- 
 tist doctrine of visible succession to the church and its ordi- 
 nances; and he takes the uniform Baptist ground that while the 
 gates of hell have never prevailed to destroy Christ's invisible 
 body of believers and confessors, the gates of hell "in all ages" 
 have prevailed against the visible churches and order of Christ. 
 In all this Blackwood implies the recent adoption of dipping by 
 the English Baptists ; and he also implies their prior reorganiza- 
 tion of the church anew — their separation and reformation after 
 the rule and order of Christ. 
 
 8. Handserd Knollys' (The Shining of a Flaming fire &c, Lon- 
 don, 1645). I n re ply to Saltmarsh's "Exceptions against the 
 Grounds of New Baptisme" (Smoke of the Temple &c.) Knollys 
 (p. 1) says : 
 
 " Paul's Doctrine was called New, although he preached Jesus and the 
 Resurrection, Acts 17, 19. Also when our Savior preached with Author- 
 ity, and confirmed his Doctrine with Miracles, they questioned among 
 themselves, saying, What thing is this? What new Doctrine is this? 
 Mark, th I & 27." 
 
 Knollys goes on to answer the "Exceptions" of Saltmarsh, but 
 he never repudiates his charge of novelty to Baptist baptism. 
 Like Spilsbury, Allen and others, he only intends to say that 
 while Baptist immersion was a new practice, at the time, it was 
 an old truth; and that while to Baptists, as Spilsbury puts it, it 
 was a "new-found truth," it was to Pedobaptists a "new thing," 
 as was Paul's doctrine to the Athenians, or as Christ's miracle to 
 the Jews. No Baptist of that day ever denied that immersion 
 was a new practice among Baptists; but they always retorted 
 upon the Pedobaptists that it was the "old truth," the "good 
 old way" and the like, though it was "new found." 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D*.) 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 SOME OTHER BAPTIST WITNESSES— Continued. 
 
 9. Daniel King (A Way to Sion Sought Out and Found &c, 
 London, 1649) i s one °f the most important and elaborate wit- 
 nesses to the fact that the Baptists of England restored immersion 
 in the "latter times." His work of 238 pages is devoted largely 
 to the discussion of two propositions : 
 
 "I. That God hath, had a people on earth, ever since the coming of 
 Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest ages of Popery, which he hath 
 owned as Saints and as his Church. 
 
 "2. That these Saints have power to reassume and take up as their 
 right, any ordinance of Christ, which they have been deprived of by the 
 violence and tyranny of the man of sin. 
 
 "Wherein it is cleared up by the Scriptures and Arguments grounded 
 upon the Scripture, who of right may administer Ordinances, and among 
 the rest the Ordinance of Baptism with Water." 
 
 The Epistle Dedicatory is written and signed by Thomas 
 Patient, John Spilsbury, William Kiffin and John Pearson, in 
 which they fully endorse and earnestly urge the reading of the 
 book by the Baptist people; and this endorsement fully covers 
 the united sentiment of the then leading Baptists of England. 
 In the preface "To the Reader," King indicates that his work is 
 an apology for Baptist position in defense of the right to restore 
 believers' baptism after it had been lost under the apostasy of 
 Rome. It is an effort to allay the confusion created by the 
 Seekers, Quakers and Pedobaptists, among Baptists and others 
 with regard to recovering the church, its ministry and the ordin- 
 ances lost in the apostasy of Rome; and to show that the Baptists 
 had restored the visible church of Christ. The Seekers took the 
 position that these had been lost and could not be recovered 
 without an extraordinary commission from heaven, another John 
 
 187 
 
1 88 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 the Baptist, or an angel ; and so they opposed Baptists and denied 
 their power or right to recover them. The Quakers claimed that 
 the ordinances were shadows and should not continue in the 
 churches, and so fought the "new baptism" of the Baptists, as 
 Saltmarsh and others. The Pedobaptists held that the ordinances 
 had succeeded to them pure through the defection of Antichrist 
 and so contended against the restoration claim of the Baptists upon 
 the ground of the Seekers that if the church and its ministry or 
 ordinances had been lost they could not be recovered except in 
 an extraordinary way. To meet these varied objections and to 
 rectify their confusion King wrote his book as endorsed by 
 Patient, Spilsbury, Kifnn and Pearson ; and it is one of the most 
 elaborate and able defenses of the Baptist position that the 
 ordinances had been lost and that the Baptists had recovered 
 them according to the Scriptures. 
 
 In the first division of Part First of this book King establishes 
 under the N. T., as under the O. T., a threefold sucession (i) of 
 Believers, (2) of the Spirit, and (3) of the Word, without any 
 reference to visible order, offices or ordinances, based upon the 
 Covenant of grace which includes God's people, Jew and Gen- 
 tiles, as his spiritual church against which the gates of hell should 
 never prevail — such being "the church in the wilderness." On 
 page 49 he says : 
 
 "From the time of Christ's coming in the flesh and revealing the New 
 Covenant, throughout all ages to the world's end ; there shall be a succes- 
 sion of Believers that shall have the Spirit of Christ, and the Gospel of 
 Christ communicated to them, and they shall be enabled in a measure to 
 hold the faith and publish it." 
 
 This was the Church in the Wilderness which King did not 
 regard as having the visible order, offices or ordinances of Christ, 
 but as only his spiritual Kingdom under the general title of the 
 church, not the churches, in the wilderness; and this was the 
 Baptist position of the 17 th century. 
 
 After having established this position he proceeds (p. 5) to say : 
 
 "Now the next thing I would prove is, That this [spiritual] church, or 
 these believers have power to reassume or take up any ordinance of God, 
 •and practice it among themselves (I mean any ordinance they see to be 
 held forth in the Scriptures, and that they have been deprived of through 
 the corruption of the times) whenever God revealeth to be his ordinance." 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 189 
 
 On p. 80 he says the same and adds these words : 
 
 "As to instance in the ordinance of Baptisme, I shall prove that a com- 
 pany of such Believers (when they see [discover] what is Christ's mind 
 concerning that Ordinance, or the subject of it) take it up among them- 
 selves, though they know not where to have a rightly baptized person to 
 dispense it upon them" — 
 
 the very principle upon which John Smyth proceeded to erect 
 the first church among English Baptists. On page 82 he employs 
 the expressions: "Since Baptism was lost" — "the Church cor- 
 rupted" — "the Church hath lost her succession" — and the like. 
 On pages 84, 85, he gives the reason why believers "ought to 
 take up Baptism," and the method how, and says: 
 
 * "And this is the very way to reforme what is amiss; yea and the people 
 of God [Baptists] have reformed, and taken up ordinances upon this con- 
 sideration ; as of Israel's taking up circumcision in the Land of Canaan, 
 Josh. 5:2." 
 
 King's argument is that as the Israelitish church in the wilder- 
 ness lost circumcision and had it restored in Canaan, so the 
 Gospel church in the wilderness lost baptism and it had now 
 been restored by the Baptists in England. He then meets the 
 usual Pedobaptist argument of the day based upon succession, 
 namely, that, if the ordinances were lost, they could only be 
 restored by a new Commission, and that therefore baptism could 
 not, as Baptists held, be administered by unbaptized persons in 
 order to recovery; and so he makes the usual Baptist argument 
 of the time (p. 87, 89,) that a disciple able to preach and make 
 converts is authorized by the Scriptures to baptize, though un- 
 baptized himself, under the commission of Christ, Matt. 28:19, 
 the apostles themselves not being qualified by their baptism, but 
 by the Spirit. On page 95 he says again : 
 
 "Now then there having been a succession of Believers, and of Com- 
 municating of the Spirit and prophecying, enabling them in some measure 
 to declare the Word; they may by vertue of Christ's Command and Com- 
 mission, and by order of the Gospel take up Baptisme, elect and ordain 
 officers, and set upon the use of any Ordinance that they may find in the 
 Word of God to be theirs; for in the Scripture we may find the way of 
 Christ : And when we have found the way, to shew a ground of keeping 
 out of the way, &c, is the highest rebellion of all." 
 
190 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Preceding this on the same page he says : 
 
 "As soon as Believers see the Baptisme of Believers, according to the 
 institution of Christ, to'be their duty ; They may, they ought (upon pain 
 of neglecting their duty) take it up. Indeed when the ordinance is afoot 
 to make use of those under the Ordinance to Administer it,' is to goe on 
 in an orderly way: But this that I have spoken, vindicateth him, whosoever 
 it were, that first saw the Truth, and recovered this Truth from under 
 Antichrist, to leave him out in doing his duty, in Baptizing those Believ- 
 ers that desire to so partake of the Ordinance." 
 
 King's position is that it was the duty of those who "first saw 
 the truth" to restore the ordinance of baptism, lost under Anti- 
 christ; but when the ordinance is once "afoot" and the ministry 
 re-established in the churches, we are to "make use of those 
 under the ordinance" as administrators of it — and so "go on in 
 an orderly way." This was the position of the leading Baptists 
 of the 17th century; and strenuous efforts were made to check 
 the indiscriminate application of the principle adopted in first 
 introducing believers' baptism by unbaptized administrators, to 
 a continuance of that method after baptism had been restored. 
 
 On page 109 King shows that baptism means dipping ; and 
 hence by the recovery of the lost ordinances he includes the 
 revival of immersion which followed the adoption of the principle 
 of believers' baptism by the Baptists of England, and which he 
 takes for granted by all that he writes on the subject. The Third 
 Part of his book which, under the title, Some Beams of Light, &c. , 
 London, 1649, was written in answer to the "Thirteen Excep- 
 tions" of Saltmarsh against the "New Baptisme" of the Baptists; 
 and which is a Quaker argument against the continuance of the 
 visible ordinances in the church, upon the ground that they are 
 shadows of Gospel truths. King, without denying Saltmarsh's 
 charge of "new baptism," ably and efficiently demolishes Salt- 
 marsh and proves that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper were designed by the Scriptures to be continued visibly 
 in the church; but this in no way contravenes his position in the 
 first and second parts of his work that the ordinances had been 
 lost under Antichrist and had been restored by the Baptists. He 
 only argues here for the principle of continuance, and not for 
 the fact that they had always, or would always, continue, when 
 lost or corrupted. See Appendix (D). 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 191 
 
 I have only faintly gathered King's position from my notes; 
 and his book deserves a more elaborate presentation. He is in 
 precise line with Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, Kiffin, 
 Barber and all the rest with regard to baptism as lost under the 
 defection of Antichrist and restored by the English Baptists. 
 Like all the rest, of his time, he denies a visible succession of 
 Christ's churches, ministry and ordinances; and yet, like all the 
 rest, he maintains a spiritual succession of believers through all 
 the ages. The Baptist writers of the 17th century regarded the 
 church in the wilderness as Baptists and as extending back to 
 ^ie apostles. They claimed the Anabaptist sects as their people 
 and traced their pedigree, as a people, back to the New Testa- 
 ment churches ; but, so far as I have read, they all confess to an 
 oft broken succession of visible churches, ministry and ordi- 
 nances. They all agree that Antichrist had been often revealed 
 before their day by their Anabaptist brethren who had risen and 
 fallen; but they regarded the reign of Antichrist for 1260 years 
 as reaching down to their time and that the spiritual church had 
 never come successfully and finally out of the wilderness until 
 the English Baptists had recovered the visible church, its min- 
 istry and the ordinances. 
 
 10. Henry Jessey (Storehouse of Provision, &c, London, 
 1650). This book was partly written against the Seekers and 
 partly in the interest of open communion and against the strict 
 communionists of that day; but it tells the same story of immer- 
 sion revival by the Baptists of England. On pages 12, 76 Jessey 
 is very clear in the definition and uses of baptism as a "dipping 
 in water;" and on pages 13-15 he squarely meets the Seekers' 
 argument, namely, that baptism having been lost, could not be 
 restored except by a prophet or an angel, or some extraordinarily 
 commissioned person. Jessey agrees with Smyth that "two or 
 three persons gathered together in Christ's name" may appoint 
 some one, according to Christ's commission, to restore baptism; 
 and contrary to the Blunt method of going to Holland for im- 
 mersion, which was evidently in his mind, he says: 
 
 "Say not in thine heart, Who shall goe to Heaven, or to sea, or beyond 
 sea for it? but the word is nigh thee. Rom. 10. So we may not goe for 
 administrators to other Countries, nor stay [wait] for them : but loo"ke to 
 the word." 
 
 On page 16 he asks: 
 
192 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 "Now must we tarry [as the Seekers say] in this Babylonish way, till 
 such a mighty Angell come ? Or must we reforme as farre as we see in all 
 these, and all other things?" 
 
 The Seekers and others urged that the world was under the 
 1260 days of Antichrist's reign, that the church and ordi- 
 nances were invisible or lost and that they could not be restored 
 until Christ came in the restitution of all things; but Jessey, like 
 Cornwell, takes the position that the spiritual church must come 
 out of Babylon, had already come out, and must not wait for a 
 1 'new commission," but obey the Scriptures as God revealed them 
 to true believers (pp. 51-56). From page 57 to 76 he variously 
 and elaborately discusses with his objector the question of a 
 1 'proper administrator" of baptism, the fact of the ordinances 
 having been lost under Antichrist, their restoration and the re- 
 establishment of the ministry in newly erected churches, without 
 any new commission but the Scriptures, just as Smyth, Spilsbury, 
 Barber and the rest do, except in a more varied and versatile 
 form; and it is clear that Jessey takes for granted the disuse of 
 immersion in England and its recent introduction by the Baptists, 
 defending their right to restoration upon the principle of ' 'refor- 
 mation" — as we shall more fully see. 
 
 On page 80 Jessey insists that the same necessity exists now, 
 as in the days of the apostles, to respect the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, though it had been lost. After its restoration he says that 
 some had been "slack" towards its observance, while some longed 
 to "enjoy" it. "Why tarry? said Ananias to Paul; while the 
 Eunuch wanted to enjoy the ordinance" — is Jessey's argument 
 to those who hesitated, as he had done, to receive the ordinance 
 as restored by unbaptized believers. He represents himself as 
 one that had tarried; and he says : 
 
 " Such considerations as these I had, But yet, because I would do 
 nothing rashly; I would not do that which I should renounce againe : I 
 desired Conference with some Christians differing therein in opinion from 
 me; about what is requisite to restoring of ordinances, if lost; Especially 
 what is essentiall in a Baptizer ? Thus I did forbeare and inquired above 
 a yeare's space." 
 
 In other words, after tarrying or forbearing for a year's space 
 subsequent to the said "Conference," he received immersion 
 without regard to the "baptizednesse" of the "baptizer," accord- 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 193 
 
 ing to the Spilsbury theory. As already seen he disagreed with 
 the Blunt method of sending "over the sea," as had been done, 
 to Holland, for a regular administration of baptism. The Jessey 
 Church Records show that in 1640 Jessey, with Blunt, was "con- 
 vinced" that baptism "ought to be by dipping;" and although he 
 tarried for several years, he declared his belief in immersion in 
 1642, and so baptized infants until immersed himself. His diffi- 
 culty was about a "proper administrator" — about what was 
 "essentiall in a Baptizer" — in the "restoring" of the "lost" ordi- 
 nance ; and hence ' 'such considerations," rather than do anything 
 "rashly," led him to "tarry" instead of hastening to "enjoy" the 
 ordinance when it was introduced in 164 1. In 1644 the "Con- 
 ferences" in his church about "infant baptism" convinced him 
 that that practice was wrong; and after a "year's space" of for- 
 bearing still, he, with most of his church, 1645, was immersed 
 without regard to the "over sea" method of restoration. He 
 uses the word "enjoy," found in the Records and in Crosby, 
 characteristic of those who did not "tarry," in 1641, to receive 
 the ordinance — or had not, like him, waited for it; and through- 
 out the whole passage there is an apparent reference to the Blunt 
 movement of 1641 for succession of baptism, with which he 
 clearly did not agree. He regarded God's people in Babylon 
 until they came out and adopted believers' immersion; and he 
 pronounces the Seekers' theory of tarrying for the ordinances, 
 until Christ or an angel come, a "Babylonish way," out of which 
 the Baptists had reformed. Like Kiffin, he does not mention the 
 Jessey Records; but the history and writings of both confirm 
 them. See Appendix (A). 
 
 From page 93 to 103, again from 104 to 130, Jessey enters 
 upon "A Question about the Warrantablenesse of Enjoying 
 Communion together by Believers that differ about Baptism." 
 This time his objector is a strict Communion Baptist. After 
 various objections and answers with regard to the Scriptural 
 ground of Communion based upon right baptism and New Tes- 
 tament order, the question is sprung about the comparative 
 value of restored baptism as a prerequisite to Communion, which 
 barred from the Lord's Supper those (such as the Congrega- 
 tionalists) not rightly baptized. On page 187 the objector 
 urges : 
 
 " None are to be owned as Disciples till they be baptized." 
 
 13 
 
194 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Jessey answers : 
 
 ''If none but baptized ones are owned to be disciples; then the first 
 Restorers of Baptisme were not owned to be disciples. And if the first 
 were so owned, and others then and now have communion with or from 
 the first ; then disowne not others that want the same ; disowne not 
 communion with them." 
 
 Objection 28 : 
 
 " There was a Necessity for so RESTORING it at first: but no necessity of 
 having communion with such now." 
 
 Jessey answers : 
 
 "Yet this necessity infringeth not the former Answers: But the same 
 grounds hold firme." 
 
 This was substantially the argument of both the strict and 
 open communion Baptists of Jessey's day ; and both admitted 
 that immersion had been restored ' 'of late" by the Baptists of 
 England. On page 111 Jessey speaks to his objector thus: 
 
 "If you must judge of your [Baptists'] late Baptisme, give leave to others 
 to judge of theirs ; and bear as you would be borne with in love ;" and he 
 speaks (p. 182) of all such in Queen Mary's dayes, or other times, that 
 "loved not their lives unto death ... we should not suggest, that such 
 are not owned (according to the Scriptures) as Believers or saved Persons; 
 for want of right Knowledge about Baptisme. Who are so much (if not 
 more) owned in Scriptures for Believers, as those that are now Baptized, by 
 deriving it from such a Baptizer," that is, unbaptized administrator. 
 
 It is clear that he includes, among those martyrs, the Ana- 
 baptists of Queen Mary's time as not having been baptized "as 
 Baptists were now baptized," that is, now immersed, at the 
 hands, originally, of unbaptized administrators, and who, he 
 adds, were "rejecting Believers, differing about an Ordinance," 
 from their communion. His position on this point was that Con- 
 gregationalists and others who were not rightly baptized, but 
 thought they were — who would do better if they learned more 
 by affiliation and communion with the Baptists — had as much 
 claim to communion upon their baptism as Baptists did upon 
 theirs in view of the fact that they were only lately immersed, 
 and that, too, at the hands of unbaptized administrators for 
 which, strictly speaking, there was no express precept in the 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 195 
 
 Scriptures, but only the general principle embraced in Christ's 
 Commission by which Baptists had restored immersion. 
 
 Jessey is evidently wrong in his premises for open commun- 
 ion, and his strict communion objector is right that, immersion 
 having been restored, we must return to the New Testament 
 pattern in all things ; but he is a valid historical witness to the 
 fact that the Baptists of England restored immersion about 
 1640-41. His testimony is stated in unmistakable terms, and 
 he is evidently one of Crosby's authorities. By a different form 
 of statement he is in exact line with the Jessey Church Records 
 and Hutchinson touching the first method of restoration ; and 
 with Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence, Barber, King, Cornwell 
 and others touching the second method. 
 
 1 1 . Another strong Baptist witness is William Kaye (Baptism 
 Without Bason, &c, London, 1653). He wrote against Infant 
 Baptism in answer to Baxter and Lidenham; and he discusses 
 several questions and answers about baptizing believers only. 
 Probably a Fifth Monarchy man he regarded the time as being 
 fulfilled for the return and reign of Christ as King ; and in his 
 introductory address (pp. 4, 5) he claims that the Baptists are 
 the "heirs apparent to all the light which hath shined" at a time 
 when the Law was ' 'overturning both Church and State, be- 
 cause his far prophesied time is now fulfilled, to have a New 
 heaven, or a reformed church, &c." He closes his introductory 
 address (p. 6) with an appeal to "contend for the faith" and a 
 submission to baptism, as Christ had, "to fulfill all righteous- 
 ness," and with a benediction of grace "that calleth out of 
 Babylon." Under the head of Questions and Answers con- 
 cerning believers' baptism, we have the following: 
 
 "Quest. 9. How conies it then to pass that this doctrine of baptism hath not 
 been before revealed?'' ' 
 
 His answer is the usual Baptist reply, namely, that it had been 
 "perverted and corrupted," by Antichrist, "till the Lamb's 
 souldiers should procure the free course of the Gospel ;" and 
 although "Antichrist, before these times, hath been revealed, 
 yet the Ordinances are but beginning to be cleared in discovering 
 whereof the church begins to be restored to the purity of the 
 primitive time of Christ and his Apostles." On page 33 the 
 following question is also put : 
 
 " WJiat is the %vay of the administration of baptism?'''' 
 
196 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The answer is : 
 
 "The Christian disciple that is to be baptized, must, Christ-like, upon 
 profession of faith and obedience, descend to be covered or buried in 
 water" — 
 
 in the name of the Trinity, and then be received into the church 
 by the right hand of fellowship. In this discussion believers' 
 baptism as opposed to infant baptism — immersion as opposed to 
 sprinkling — is what is meant by the restored ordinance. 
 
 From page 34 to 37 Kaye asks and answers questions con- 
 cerning the province of the magistry either to suppress or coun- 
 tenance this doctrine of baptism as established by the Baptist 
 reformation, in conflict with the practice of the English Church; 
 and he assumes; as a Fifth Monarchy Baptist, that as the 
 magistry had cut down the Episcopal tree, it would be honor- 
 able still to continue their good work until Parochial sprinkling or 
 infant baptism should be uprooted. From page 37 to 42 he 
 appeals to the elect among the Reformers, still unimmersed 
 and practicing infant sprinkling, to come completely out of 
 Babylon as the Baptists had done. In spite of the great 
 Reformation in which infant baptism "past muster," and has 
 been defended by great names — 
 
 "yet behold the Lord makes the flock, or common people, to see the truth, 
 when almost all public teachers were overvailed [Barber] . . . untill at 
 last the Lord saw his time to trouble and thereby make the discovery of 
 his light unto the public ministry, by calling some of them [Barber] to 
 trim their lamps, that they may shine in the discovery of the mind of Christ 
 in baptizing believers only." 
 
 Again : 
 
 "Did not the truth alwaies when it was revealed, and think you it shall 
 not now as well as ever (if God intend mercy to England) marvelously 
 prevail? " 
 
 On page 40, urging the elect Pedobaptists to come out of the 
 darkness and ignorance of Pedobaptism, he says : 
 
 "We know, or may know, that believers themselves, which were really 
 and fully baptized (Acts 19:1, 2, 3, 4) because they were ignorant at that 
 time of the Holy Ghost, were upon that account (all the fundamentals 
 being revealed without which baptism cannot be warrantable) rebaptized; 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 197 
 
 when we were sprinkled great darkness, in comparison of the light of the 
 Gospel [Baptist] reformation that now shineth, was then as a cloud over- 
 vailing the Word." 
 
 Here Kaye refers back to the believers' baptism of the Ana- 
 baptists, before the introduction of immersion, which was 
 sprinkling ; and paralleling their first baptism as believers with 
 the baptism of the twelve believers rebaptized by Paul, he says 
 that they, like them, were at first under a cloud in comparison 
 of the light which brought them into the Gospel reformation 
 which was by immersion. On the same page, he says again : 
 
 "That they might be good and Godly men, and Martyrs, that were never 
 more than sprinkled, it may be granted ; but then it was a time when the 
 smoak was in the Temple. Martyrs (Ten Martyrs in England, Hen. 8. 
 Anno, 1553) have suffered for the profession of the baptizing of believers 
 onely, but never any Martyrs have suffered in the defense of Infant pre- 
 tended baptism." 
 
 The implication is that those ten Anabaptist martyrs were 
 sprinkled, being under the smoke in the temple as to immersion, 
 and included among the good and godly men whose good inten- 
 tions did not relieve them of their error in this respect. This 
 appeared by what follows after when Kaye says : 
 
 "If we would look on humane example, It is not for us to say as those 
 obstinate unbelievers that the Martyr Stephen reproved, who said, As our 
 Fathers did, so zvill we do.'''' 
 
 This point I will not press, however, and will leave the reader 
 to judge in the light of what goes before as well as what follows 
 after. 
 
 Kaye treats immersion as a new discovery from beginning to 
 end; and he appeals to the elect under every form of Babylon. 
 Having the light now revealed, if they see not, "in something 
 newly discovered," such as this new baptism, then they are not 
 the elect, and so he closes his appeal. He emphasizes, more 
 definitely than the rest of the Baptist controversialists, his fight 
 against "sprinkling" as the root of the Episcopal tree; and 
 hence he means nothing but immersion, as believers' baptism, 
 when he puts the question and answers it : 
 
 "How comes it to pass, that this doctrine of baptism hath not been be- 
 fore revealed." 
 
198 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Like all the rest, he regards immersion as a special revelation 
 to the Baptists whom he regards in their separation from the 
 Reformers as the true church of believers — the woman in the 
 wilderness — having been called out from under the shadow of 
 Antichrist and reformed. 
 
 12. William Allen, in two works (An Answer to Mr. J. 
 Gfoodwin], his XL. Queries, &c, London, 1653; Some Bap- 
 tismal Abuses, &c, London, 1653). In reply to Goodwin's 
 Querie III. (p. 34) he says: 
 
 "And if the first Church or Churches might not be constituted without 
 baptism, then neither may those that succeed them, because the same rea- 
 son that made baptism necessary hereunto with them, makes it necessary 
 also unto us ; for Gospell Order, settled by Apostolicall authority and 
 direction, hath not lost any of its native worth, efficacy, or obliging vir- 
 tue, by disuse or discontinuance, upon occasion of Papall defection, but 
 ought to be the same now to those who are studious of a thorough reforma- 
 tion as it was unto them in the first beginning of Church Order." 
 
 On page 72 he answers Querie XXL, which calls immersion 
 '"'"new baptisme" in these words: 
 
 "Though it should be granted, that many if not the generality of these 
 that have entered into the way of the new baptisme (as the Querist calls it, 
 it being the old way of Baptizing) have received their precious faith and 
 other graces, under the dispensation of their Infant Baptisme, &c." 
 
 In his second work (p. 107), Allen, who, like Jessey, was ad- 
 vocating Open Communion, says : 
 
 "It is true (as I observed before upon another occasion) that it may fall 
 out, that in undertaking a refor?nation and restitution of ordinances and 
 worship from under their corruption and decayes, there may be an impossi- 
 bility, precisely and in all things, to answer the original usage, but that 
 through an indispensable necessity, there will be in these reformers some 
 variation either in the Administrator, or in some conceivable circumstance 
 of the administration, in respect of which indispensable necessity, God 
 accepts men according to what opportunity they have, and not according 
 to what they have not." 
 
 Allen regarded "gospel order" as having been "disused or 
 discontinued" under the defection of Antichrist; and that they 
 were restored under the Baptist "reformation" This included 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 199 
 
 immersion revived by unbaptized administrators, as he implies in 
 both works. He does not deny that immersion was "new bap- 
 tism" in practice, but calls it the "old way of Baptizing," just as 
 Spilsbury did, who calls it the "old" but the "new found, way." 
 Allen is with Spilsbury and Jessey on the communion question; 
 and he is precisely with them and all the rest historically as to the 
 disuse of immersion, and its restoration by the English Baptists. 
 13. Thomas Lamb (Truth Prevailing against the fiercest Op- 
 position, &c, London, 1655). This is a reply to Goodwin's 
 "Water Dipping, &c.;" and on page 44 he answers especially 
 the charge of Schism preferred against the Baptists who sepa- 
 rated from the Puritans. He asks : 
 
 "Why should our separating from you be counted Schisme more than 
 your separating from the Parish Churches ? Is not our ground the very 
 self-same which yours then was ? And what can you say to Mr. Baxter, 
 who chargeth you with schisme for withdrawing from the National 
 Church, which we cannot answer you with ... As the fatal Apostacie 
 from the pure Ordinances of Christ and the example of the Primitive 
 Churches in worship, was graduall, so hath the recovery of primitive 
 purity been ; now a little and there a little, as it hath, pleased God to com- 
 viunicate light to his upright ones that he hath used in the reformation, but 
 it hath been as it were by inches, and still been made costly to the names 
 and Instruments, they all bear this burthen which now Mr. Goodwin 
 charges us with schisme. The Pope crieth Schisme and Heresie after the 
 Church of England . . . The Bishops cry Schisme after some of the 
 Presbyterians. The Presbyterians cry Schisme after Mr. Goodwin and all 
 the Separatists . . which withdrawings have been so many steps 
 towards primitive purity. Now Mr. Goodwin crieth Schisme (pretty lib- 
 erally) after us who have gone a few steps further in the same path (which 
 as yet his heart serveth him not to proceed in) that we may reach the 
 things we have heard from the beginning. I John 2:24; Coloss. 4:12." 
 
 Lamb squarely admits the charge of Baptist separation from 
 the Separatists ; and he argues their same right, at a later date, 
 to separate from the Puritans, that they had at a still earlier date 
 to separate from other Reformers. "Is not our ground [now] the 
 very same which yours then was ?" This is precisely Kiffin's 
 claim in his Briefe Remonstrance; and it is what Barber and ail 
 who touch the question of Baptist separation admit. The Eng- 
 lish Baptists were chiefly Separatists from the Separatists, claim- 
 
200 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 ing their reformation upon higher ground — that is, the erection 
 of their churches, after the rule of Christ, upon the principle of 
 believers' baptism — and this is the contention of both Lamb and 
 Kiffin. This claim of separation and reformation, however, 
 fixes the origin and pedigree of the English Baptists, so far as they 
 are arganically concerned in their separation and not in preexistent 
 Anabaptist sects ; and this agrees precisely with the history of 
 the case. Lamb, as all the rest do, derives Baptist reformation 
 from the "fatall apostacie;" but he locates this Baptist reforma- 
 tion as the last of a series of reformations gradually recovering 
 primitive purity and order as they had been gradually lost. He 
 nowhere denies Goodwin's oft-repeated charge of "new bap- 
 tisme," and only says on page 61 in reply to the XVI. Consider- 
 ation of Water Dipping : 
 
 "You have no need of Baptisme after Repentance and Faith (which 
 you call new Baptisme) because your old sprinkling in infancy is effectual 
 to all ends and new purposes of Baptisme which you reduce to three 
 heads, &c." 
 
 "Water dipping" was what Goodwin specially called "new." 
 No Baptist of the 17 th century ever denied that the practice of 
 adult dipping in England was '■"new" 
 
 14. Hercules Collins (Believers' Baptisme from Heaven, &c, 
 London, 169T). In reply to Thomas Wall's Baptism Anatom- 
 ized and in answer to the charge that the Baptists had received 
 their baptism from John Smyth, who baptized himself, on page 
 115, Collins says : 
 
 "Could not this Ordinance of Christ, which was lost in the Apostasy, 
 be revived (as the Feast of Tabernacles was, tho' lost a great while) unless 
 in such a filthy way as you falsely assert, viz. that the English Baptists 
 receiveth their Baptism from Mr. John Smith ? It is absolutely untrue, it 
 being well known, by some yet alive, how false this Assertion is ; and if 
 J. W. will but give a meeting to any of us, and bring whom he pleaseth 
 with him, we shall sufficiently shew the Falsity of what is affirmed by him 
 in this Matter." 
 
 Collins indignantly agrees with Crosby that Smith's baptism 
 never succeeded to the English Baptists ; and Collins and Crosby 
 agree in the position that believers' immersion "lost in the apos- 
 tasy" was ''■revived'" by the English Baptists — just as the Feast of 
 Tabernacles was restored after being lost for a great while. Not 
 
Some Other Baptist Witnesses. 201 
 
 only so, but Collins asserts that there were some living in 1 69 1 who 
 knew that Smith's baptism never succeeded to the Baptists of 
 England. In other words, this points back about fifty years to 
 1 64 1, when immersion was restored, and which was still a fresh 
 fact in the memory of some old men. Last but not least, and 
 down to the end of the 17th century, Collins is still in line with 
 the long list of authors who agree, directly or indirectly, that 
 believers' immersion did not exist in England before 1641, and 
 that the Baptists of England restored it at that date fixed by 
 the Jessey Records. 
 
 The controversial literature, from 1641 to the close of the cen- 
 tury, between Baptists and Pedobaptists, was voluminous ; and 
 while reference to the recent introduction of immersion was oc- 
 casional, there was no difference between them, express or im- 
 plied, about the fact. The Pedobaptists charged it and the 
 Baptists acknowledged and defended it, after 1641 ; and as said 
 before, there is not the slightest hint of any such controversy 
 before that date. The Baptist and Pedobaptist writers before 
 1 641 stood on the border of the preceding century, and they 
 must have known of the existence, character and customs of the 
 sectaries of their day. Their writings have come down to us in 
 sufficient volume to make plain the history of that period. The 
 works of Smyth, Helwys, Morton and others set forth Baptist 
 principles and practices in unmistakable terms from 1609 to 
 1 641 ; and it would be marvelous if against the universal prac- 
 tice of sprinkling they had opposed exclusive adult immersion 
 without a single mention of the fact by them or their opponents. 
 This would be especially singular in the light of such a contro- 
 versy from 1 64 1 to the close of the century. More than this, if 
 there had been any prior Anabaptist organizations in England 
 succeeding to the time of Smyth and Helwys it would still be 
 more remarkable that Smyth himself should have declared that 
 down to his movement " never a one" of the English "at any 
 time believed visibly in a true constituted church," that is, by be- 
 lievers' baptism; and this utterly excludes the succession of any 
 Anabaptist church, or conventicle, to the English Baptists, prior 
 to Smyth's organization. The Baptist and Pedobaptist writers of 
 the 17th century sustain this position; and certainly so many 
 of them from every part of the kingdom in a hundred years of* 
 controversy should have known whether or not there was any 
 Anabaptist succession from the 16th century, and whether or not 
 the Smyth-Helwys people immersed before 1641. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1 64I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— DR. FEATLEY. 
 
 So far I have considered, with the exception of Praisegod 
 Barebone, only the testimony of Baptist documents and writers 
 which establishes the clear probability that after the disuse of 
 immersion in England, the English Baptists restored it in 1641. 
 Praisegod Barebone seems to have written as a friend to the 
 Baptists with whom he had been associated, some of them at 
 least, before they separated from the Puritans, and with whom 
 he must have been afterwards well acquainted ; but I now come 
 to notice the writings of enemies and to put them in evidence 
 for what they are worth as corroborative of the testimony of the 
 Baptists themselves. Our enemies do not always lie, nor do we 
 always tell the truth in history ; and the testimony of our enemies 
 is at least valid when, unchallenged, it corroborates the facts of 
 our history, "acknowledged and justified," as Crosby says, by 
 Baptist writers themselves. In the citations from Barebone, and 
 from those to whom I now refer, I see no conflict with the testi- 
 mony of Baptists themselves. Hence it is not unfair to estab- 
 lish what seems to be clearly a fact that about 1641 the Baptists 
 restored immersion in England — our enemies being in agreement 
 with ourselves. 
 
 The first witness here produced is Dr. Daniel Featley, who, 
 in 1644, wrote his "Dippers Dipt" (London ed., 1646). In his 
 Epistle Dedicatory, after a very bitter arraignment of the Eng- 
 lish Anabaptists as heretics and schismatics, he says: "They 
 flock in great multitudes to their Jordans, and both sexes enter 
 the river, and are dipt after their manner, with a kind of spell, 
 &c." This passage refers their practice to the time, in the present 
 tense, when Featley wrote in 1644. It is objected that under 
 the third head and at the close of this Epistle Dedicatory, Feat- 
 ley indicates that the Anabaptists had been so practicing immer- 
 
What the Enemy Said — Dr. Featley. 
 
 - c 3 
 
 sion "for more than twenty years"'' near the place of his residence. 
 He says : 
 
 ••As Solinns writeth. that in Sardinia where there is a venomous serpent 
 called Solifuga. vkc. This venomous Serpent [were Sclifuga) flying from, 
 and shunning the light of God's Word, is the Anabaptist who in tiuselater 
 tivus first showed his shining head and speckled skin and thrust out his 
 
 sting near the place of my residence for more than twenty years." 
 
 This passage occurs three pages after the one already quoted, 
 and after a discussion of Anabaptist heresy with regard to 
 magistracy. 6cc; and it is written in the past tense with reference 
 simply to the twenty or more years existence of the Anabaptists 
 near his residence — not then flocking in great multitudes to their 
 Jordans and dipping over head and ears — but Solifuga-Like in 
 a state of concealment. It is thus Featley proceeds to "entei 
 into the lists of the ensuing Tractate"' in the exposure of the 
 Anabaptists, whom he here calls "neu \ ■ - Sectaries." 
 
 In The Preface to the Reader, and near the close. Featley in- 
 dicates the later date of flocking in great multitudes and dipping 
 in the rivers. After speaking of the Anabaptist fire not "fully 
 quenched"'" in Germany and "soon put out" in the reign of 
 Elizabeth and James, he proceeds : 
 
 "But vf '.:::. since the unhappy distractions which our sinnes have 
 brought upon us, the Temporal! sword being otherways employee and the 
 Spirituall locked up fast in the scabbard, this Sect among others hath so 
 far presumed upon the patience of the State that it hath held weekly 
 Conventicles, rebaptized hundreds of men and women together in the twi- 
 light, in Rivulets and some arms of the Thames, and elsewhere, dipping 
 them over head and ears. It hath printed divers pamphle;s in defense :: 
 their heresy, yea and challenged some of our preachers to disputation, 
 fee" 
 
 The "unhappy distractions" and the otherwise employment of 
 the temporal and spiritual sword. ;- of late." point to the revo- 
 lution of 1 641. the " Yeare of Jubilee: " and it is distinctly here 
 signified by Featley that it was at this period that these Anabap- 
 tists were openly and with impunity rebaptizing hundreds in the 
 rivers. Yea they were "flocking in great multitudes " to bap- 
 tism — a thing which could not have happened before 1641 with- 
 out the intervention of civic and ecclesiastical proceedings 
 
204 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 which would have put on record the arraignment and punish- 
 ment of the Anabaptists for such a practice. Such proceedings 
 against the practice of immersion were had after 1 641, 'as we 
 have seen, when, in 1644, Laurence Clarkson was jailed in Suf- 
 folk and Henry Denne at Spalding, 1646, for this offense; and 
 we may be sure that before 1641 when the temporal and spiritual 
 swords were unsheathed against the Anabaptists, the baptismal 
 demonstration described by Featley above would have been im- 
 possible without punishment and record. The twenty or more 
 years of Anabaptist existence near Featley's residence do not in- 
 clude any reference whatever to Anabaptist immersion in Eng- 
 land before the period "of fate," alluded to by the author, after 
 1641. As Dr. Whitsitt has demonstrated and as Dr. Newman 
 well says: 
 
 " What Featley says about the practice of immersion refers definitely to 
 the present (1644)." 
 
 Nothing is clearer than that Featley is speaking of Baptist dip- 
 ping as they "now practiced" in 1644, and as they had not prac- 
 ticed before that date, 1641. 
 
 Again on page 118 Featley discusses the 40th Article of the 
 Baptist Confession of 1644 on Dipping. He says: 
 
 " This Article is wholly sowsed with the new leaven of Anabaptisme. 
 I say new leaven, for it cannot be proved that any of the ancient Anabap- 
 tists maintained any such position, there being three ways of baptizing, 
 ■either by dipping, or washing, or sprinkling, to which the Scriptures al- 
 ludeth in sundry places : the Sacrament is rightly administered by any of 
 the three, and whatsoever is alleaged -here for dipping, we approve of so 
 far as it excludeth not the other two. Dipping may be and hath been used 
 in some places trina i?nmersio, a threefold dipping ; but there is no neces- 
 sity of it. It is not essentiall to baptisme, neither do the texts in the mar- 
 gent conclude any such thing. It is true that John baptized Christ in 
 Jordan, and Philip baptized the Eunuch in the river ; but the text saith 
 no£, that either the Eunuch or Christ himself, or any baptized by John or 
 his Disciples, or any of Christ's Disciples, were dipped, plunged or dowsed 
 over head and ears, as this Article implyeth, and our Anabaptists now prac- 
 tice." 
 
 Observe here that Featley stigmatizes immersion as the "new 
 leaven of Anabaptisme" based on the definition of the 40th Article 
 
What the Enemy Said — Dr. Featley. 205 
 
 and as the "now practice" of "our [English] Anabaptists," for 
 two reasons : 
 
 1. Because it was exclusive. This was the new and added 
 offense of the Anabaptists after 1640-41; and Featley implies the 
 charge of Barebone and others that immersion as the essential 
 form of baptism made a nullity of sprinkling and pouring. No 
 other Anabaptists according to Featley ever made such a claim ; 
 and he is in accord with Baillie, as we shall see, that "among 
 the old Anabaptists, or those over sea, the question of dipping 
 and sprinkling never came upon the Table." The English Ana- 
 baptists had made a new departure by making immersion exclu- 
 sive, and this was the "new leaven of Anabaptisme" embedded 
 in the 40th Article of the 1644 Confession and in the ''now 
 practice" of "our [English] Anabaptists." 
 
 2. Because it was not essential. Featley claims that immersion 
 "over head and ears" cannot be shown as the practice of John, 
 or of his or Christ's disciples. He yielded to the practice of im- 
 mersion as indifferent with sprinkling and pouring — admitted the 
 practice of trine immersion — but he insists that immersion is not 
 essential to baptism at all, according to Scripture and old Ana- 
 baptist practice. He had a horror of this "over head and ears" 
 business; and from this standpoint also he calls immersion the 
 "new leaven," the tainted novelty, of the "English Anabaptists" 
 who had recently adopted "totall dipping" as Barebone ex- 
 pressed it within the last "two or three yeares, or some such 
 short time." 
 
 But it is objected that the phrases, "new upstart sectaries," 
 "new leaven," respectively applied to the Baptists and to im- 
 mersion in England, do not imply the recent introduction of 
 dipping as something "new," nor that the English Anabap- 
 tists as a sect was "new," in 1644. It is claimed that Featley 
 classifies the Anabaptists (pp. 19-22), such as the Novatians 
 (250) the Donatists (380) and the Anabaptists of 1525 (all of 
 whom he only identifies by the practice of rebaptism without ref- 
 erence to mode) in such a way as to imply only two sorts out of 
 three sorts. These two sorts, it is argued, consist of the "an- 
 cient" and the "new" sort; the new sort including the 1625 and 
 the 1644 Anabaptists as the same sort. Featley however does 
 not apply the word "new" to any sort except the "new upstart 
 sectaries" or "our [English] Anabaptists" of 1644, wno are J ust 
 119 years younger than the 1525 Anabaptists; and he does not 
 
:2o6 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 mean that the "new leaven of Anabaptisme" — now embedded in 
 the 40th Article and which he calls the "now practice" of "our 
 [English] Anabaptists" — was 119 years old. The only identifica- 
 tion of the 1644 with the 1525 Anabaptists, according to Feat- 
 ley, consists specifically in rebaptizing those baptized in infancy, 
 as well as all others, without any reference to mode; but the 
 peculiarity of exclusive dipping, "the new leaven of Anabap- 
 tisme," is confined by him to "our [English] Anabaptists," the 
 "new upstart sectaries," whose "now practice" was immersion, 
 and who have now, in 1644, f° r the fi rst time in history, put 
 down dipping as a definition of baptism in a Confession of Faith. 
 Immersion, in the mind of Featley, was the "new" added to 
 the old "leaven" of Anabaptism by any mode, whether among 
 English or German Anabaptists; but immersion, especially 
 exclusive immersion, was not then the leaven of Continental 
 Anabaptism as such men as Featley, Baillie and Edwards well 
 knew. The Anabaptists of 1525 and onward, as a rule, prac- 
 ticed sprinkling and pouring as sufficient and regarded immersion 
 as indifferent with the other modes of baptism. They sometimes 
 in some places practiced immersion; but as a matter of sufficiency, 
 expediency or necessity they seem to have had no hesitancy in 
 practicing sprinkling or pouring. According to Dr. Featley the 
 Novatians (250) and the Donatists (380) practiced infant baptism 
 and did not exclusively immerse, if they always immersed. Dr. 
 Newman confirms Featley with regard to their infant baptism, 
 (Hist. Antipedobaptism, pp. 17-20); and he is likewise clear 
 that the Antipedobaptists of the 16th century generally sprinkled 
 and that " immersion claimed a very small share of their atten- 
 tion," (Review of the Question, pp. 1 71-173). Baillie (Ana- 
 baptisme, &c, p. 163) says of them: 
 
 As I take it, they dip none, but all whom they baptize they sprinkle 
 
 :c. 
 
 But it is objected that Featley (Confutation of A. R., p. 49) 
 shows that the Senate of Zurich decreed the drowning of the 
 1525 Catabaptists, because they immersed {quo quis peccateo 
 puniatur) and for the same reason wished the English Anabap- 
 tists so punished "in some way answerable to their sin." Some 
 of the English Anabaptists were burned, 1539, for the offense of 
 Anabaptism. Therefore, it is argued, the English Anabaptists 
 were immersionists, since they were punished for the same offense 
 
What the Enemy Said — Dr. Featley. 207 
 
 that those of Zurich were, and since Featley identifies the 1644 
 and the 1525 Anabaptists as the same by immersion. Accord- 
 ing to this logic, however, those English Anabaptists, burned in 
 1539, should have been drowned if punished in a form ''an- 
 swerable to the sin" of immersion; but drowning was a usual 
 punishment for certain crimes in Switzerland and Germany long 
 before the Reformation, and was specially applicable to women 
 as being the easiest mode of death. It was the doom of the old 
 Roman law to be sewed in a sack and cast into the sea for the 
 sin of Sacrilege. Margaret and Agnes Wilson, of Stirling, the 
 "virgin martyrs," 1685, were drowned in the Sol way for their 
 Covenanter's faith — this in Sprinkling Scotland. Felix Manz 
 and other Anabaptists who sprinkled for rebaptism were drowned, 
 while Hubmair, who poured, was burned and his wife drowned 
 for the same offense of Catabaptism. The words mergo, taufen, 
 doopen=baptizo, at that time, had attained the altered meaning of 
 wash or sprinkle as well as dip ; and hence the drowning of 
 Anabaptists had no more reference to immersion than to other 
 forms of baptism among the Anabaptists or Catabaptists whose 
 crime was simply rebaptism without the slightest regard to mode. 
 At the close of one of the public disputations at Zurich, Milner 
 (Vol. II., p. 536) says that the Anabaptists went out and "re- 
 baptized the people in the streets" that is by sprinkling, as in the 
 case of Manz, Grebel, Blaurock and others, 1524. The Senate 
 of Zurich, at the close of the several disputations, 1527, passed 
 a decree that "whoever should rebaptize any person, should him- 
 self be drowned* (ibid., p. 538), according to a usual mode of 
 punishment; and the celebrated words of Zwingle : "Quiiterum 
 mergit, mergatur" are rendered by Milner: "He who rebaptizes 
 with water, let him be drowned in water." These words had no 
 more application to immersion than to -sprinkling, according to 
 the altered usage of mergit and mergatur ; and Dr. Featley 
 (p. 49) expresses the decree of Zurich in the same language 
 when he thus renders it : 
 
 "If any presumed to rebaptize those that were baptized before, they 
 should be drowned." 
 
 Whatever Featley's notion that those Anabaptists of 1525 who 
 were drowned, immersed, he did not believe that they were 
 drowned because they had immersed, but because they rebaptized ; 
 and he only expresses the formal fitness of drowning those who 
 
2o8 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 rebaptized by immersion. He does not in the slightest way in- 
 tend here to identify the 1644 and the 1525 Anabaptists by 
 immersion, or to imply that the English Anabaptists had been 
 immersing all the while, or that any of them had ever been pun- 
 ished for immersion — the thing he seemed now to advise for the 
 first time in England since they had added the new offense of 
 exclusive dipping to rebaptism, the "new leaven" of their 'mow 
 practice" and of their 1644 Confession, the new sin of "our 
 (English) Anabaptists," and not of our "ancient" or 1525 Ana- 
 baptists, so far as exclusive immersion was concerned. Featley 
 rightly expressed the sin and punishment of the 1525 Anabap- 
 tists, according to Gastius' Latin phrase above, when he says : 
 "They who drew others into the whirlpool of error, by con- 
 straint draw one another into the river to be drowned ; " but he 
 does not mean that they were drowned simply for dip'ping when 
 he says : "And they who profaned baptism by a second dipping, 
 rue it by a third immersion." He really means no more than 
 when he says of the Anabaptists (p. 135): 
 
 "Thousands of that Sect who defiled their first baptism by the second, 
 were baptized a third time in their own blood." 
 
 The truth is that infant dipping which would be the first to be de- 
 filed by a "second dipping," was not in vogue in Zurich; and the 
 "second dipping," with but little exception, was not in practice 
 by the Anabaptists. The "third immersion," or drowning, was 
 as applicable to sprinkling as to dipping ; and Anabaptism or 
 Catabaptism meant immersion into "error," rather than dipping 
 into water, by what Featley calls a "prophanation of the holy 
 sacrament." If he believed the Zurich Anabaptists, 1525, 
 immersed, he erroneously followed a tradition which still 
 persists in spite of true history, and which grew out of the sup- 
 position that drowning was decreed as a form of punishment 
 answerable to the sin of immersion. There were a large number 
 of immersions at St. Gall, 1525, where the penalty was "banish- 
 ment" for rebaptism, and where the practice seems to have been 
 completely broken up; but at Zurich the penalty was drowning, 
 where the practice of rebaptism was by sprinkling ; and the first 
 victim of the ordinary law was Felix Manz, a sprinkler, 1527, 
 under the sentence of Zwingle himself: "Qui iterum mergit 
 niergatur." 
 
 Zwingle in his Elenchus and Featley in his Dippers Dipt agree 
 
What the Enemy Said — Dr. Featley. 209 
 
 as to the meaning of Catabaptism which expresses the offense 
 for which Anabaptists were punished without regard to mode of 
 baptism — except in England after 1641, when dipping, as ex- 
 clusive baptism, became an added offense to rebaptism, and was 
 punished by law, as in the case of Clarkson, Oates and Denne. 
 Featley says : 
 
 "The name Anabaptist is derived from the Preposition ava and 3a~- 
 tICco and signifieth a rebaptizer ; or at least such an one as alloweth or 
 maintaineth rebaptizing: and they are called Catabaptists from the prepo- 
 sition Kara fiairrua), signifying an abuser or prophaner of Baptism. For 
 indeed every Anabaptist is also a Catabaptist. The reiteration of that 
 Sacrament of our entrance into the church, and seal of our new birth in 
 Christ, is a violation and depravation of that holy ordinance." (Dippers 
 Dipt., p. 19, 1646.) 
 
 He says again : 
 
 " An Anabaptist deprives children of baptism, a Catabaptist depraves 
 baptism. A Catabaptist may sometimes be no Anabaptist, such as was 
 Leo Copronymous, who defiled the Font at his baptism, yet was he not 
 christened again : but every Anabaptist is necessarily a Catabaptist. for 
 the reiteration of that sacrament is an abuse and pollution thereof." 
 (Dippers Dipt., p. 124, 1646.) 
 
 Hence the crime of rebaptism did not consist in the mode of 
 baptism. The word Catabaptist does not mean an immersionist 
 any more than an affusionist or aspersionist in ecclesiastical 
 literature; and hence drowning by the Zurich Senate, as already 
 said, had no reference whatever to the mode of baptism. It 
 was like burning or banishment, the punishment of Cata- 
 baptism which was regarded as the "prophanation" of baptism by 
 rebaptism whether by immersion or sprinkling ; and hence the 
 Anabaptists burned in England, 1539, like those drowned at 
 Zurich, 1527, were simply punished for Catabaptism without 
 any reference to immersion, the practice of which in either case 
 is without historic proof or inference. So of all the punishments 
 inflicted upon Anabaptists on the Continent or in England until 
 after 1641, when the offense of exclusive immersion w r as added 
 to the crime of rebaptism, hitherto administered without regard 
 to mode. 
 
 Whatever Featley's view then of immersion among some of 
 
 14 
 
210 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 the Anabaptists of Switzerland, 1525, he must have known as 
 Baillie did that immersion was not exclusive or general among 
 them, and that sprinkling was their usual practice; and hence he 
 did not call them "new and upstart," nor identify them with 
 "our [English] Anabaptists" of 1644 upon the ground of im- 
 mersion which he could not have called "new leaven," 119 
 years old. He identified them only upon the ground of rebap- 
 tism or Catabaptism ; and he must have known as well as Bare- 
 bone and others did that the practice of dipping by the English 
 Anabaptists was of recent date. He lived in Southwark, and 
 had known the Anabaptist Solifuga for more than twenty years; 
 and what the so-called Kiffin Manuscript and the Bampfield 
 Document, Crosby and his witnesses, say of the "disuse," of 
 believers' immersion in England and its restoration by the Eng- 
 lish Baptists, 1640-41, must have been known to Featley and 
 here taken for granted in his Dippers Dipt. Even, however, if 
 he had identified the English Anabaptists of 1644 with the 
 Swiss Anabaptists of 1525 upon the ground of immersion, he 
 would have known the gap of "disuse" which yawned in the 
 practice of immersion in England and upon the Continent; and 
 his "new upstart," or "new leaven," stigma would have still 
 been applicable only to "our [English] Anabaptists" and their 
 "now practice" of exclusive immersion as now implied by the 
 40th Article of their 1644 Confession and "of late" exemplified 
 in baptizing hundreds of men and women "over head and ears" 
 and "naked" in their Jordans. 
 
 Let me repeat that if such had been Anabaptist practice 
 before 1641 in England when the temporal and spiritual sword 
 was unsheathed, such men as Featley and Edwards would have 
 been engaged, not in controversy, but in prosecution, against 
 the Anabaptists. The added offense of exclusive immersion 
 greatly enraged the Pedobaptists already antagonized by rebap- 
 tism in other forms; and if the English Anabaptists from 161 1 to 
 1 641 had practiced and pressed their "new crotchet" — endan- 
 gering the health and virtue of the people by naked baptism as 
 claimed by Featley, Edwards, Baxter and others — we should 
 have heard of it in the court records and history of that period 
 as was to some extent true after 1641 in spite of the enlarged 
 liberty of the Baptists. Featley does speak of the Anabaptist 
 "fire" quenched in the reigns of Elizabeth and James, smothered 
 under ashes during the reign of Charles I. down to 1641, now 
 
What the Enemy Said — Dr. Featley. 211 
 
 ablaze "of late" since the "unhappy distractions" of the revolu- 
 tion ; but among all the charges of heresy and schism made in 
 common to the prior period of Anabaptism in Germany and 
 England he does not stigmatize any as " new upstart," nor with 
 the "new leaven of Anabaptisme," nor with the licentiousness 
 of naked baptism, except "our Anabaptists in England" "of late," 
 nor does he imply it. 
 
 He compares "our Anabaptists in England" (p. 130) to a 
 "young lion," who though not yet guilty, as might be claimed, 
 of the crimes of their predecessors, yet he warns that when he 
 is "older" grown and "knows his own strength, being hunger- 
 bit," he will run ' 'roaring abroad seeking whom he may devour." 
 Under the figure of the "Solifuga" (p. 5, E. D.) he refers to 
 him as having "first shewed his shining head," " in these later 
 limes," "neer his place of residence for more than twenty yeers;" 
 and he here evidently points to the organic origin of the Anabap- 
 tists, 1633, and further back perhaps to 161 1, as he knew them 
 in and about London. Organically they were a "young," a 
 "new upstart," sect; not yet arraigned or punished for the 
 grosser crimes of former Anabaptists, but not to be trusted to 
 older growth and strength in the heresy and schism of rebaptism 
 to which they had now added the offense of exclusive immersion 
 — the "new leaven of Anabaptisme" — endangering the health 
 and virtue of the people by naked administration. 
 
 Featley regarded ' 'our Anabaptists of England" not only as a 
 "young," a "new upstart" sect, but, from the organic and ex- 
 clusive standpoint, as a separate and distinct sect of Anabaptists. 
 Upon the general principle of rebaptism and in some other 
 respects he identifies them with the German Anabaptists and 
 with the former Anabaptist elements in England, but he dis- 
 tinguishes them as sui generis with respect to their "new leaven" 
 of exclusive immersion lately begun to be practiced in the King- 
 dom. Like Edwards (p. 133) he associates them with Brownists 
 and other sects of recent origin whose errors were of recent date. 
 To be sure, he points back to the foreign elements of Anabap- 
 tism as "chips" hewn from the German block, "Stock" [Stork,] 
 some of which flew to England and kindled the Dutch Anabap- 
 tist "fire" in the reigns of Elizabeth and James; but he shows 
 that this elemental flame was quenched, although the elemental 
 embers lay under ashes until the fire broke out again under the 
 organized form of "our Anabaptists of England" — English Ana- 
 
212 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 baptists — at a later date under the "new" and distinctive pecu- 
 liarity of exclusive immersion. "Our Anabaptists of England" 
 were something "new and upstart" under the sun; and their 
 exclusive immersion was the "new leaven of Anabaptisme" un- 
 der the sun — not sanctioned by the teachings of Scripture nor by 
 the practice of the old Anabaptists. Featley's "Dippers Dipt" 
 is an implication that immersion in England was of recent intro- 
 duction by the Baptists — a "splinter new practice" as Dr. Whit- 
 sitt puts it. 
 
 For a different but conclusive argument, geographically and 
 critically considered, I refer the reader to Dr. Whitsitt's book on 
 this subject. (A Question in Baptist History, pp. 70-74.) 
 
 Featley is in exact line with the Baptist documents and writers 
 of his day. Cornwell, in 1645, positively affirms that the Bap- 
 tists had resumed immersion under the "discovery" and "com- 
 mand" of Christ; and Featley, in 1644, affirms that immersion 
 was the "new leaven of Anabaptisme" in the 40th article of the 
 Baptist Confession. £arebone declares, in 1643, that Baptist 
 dipping was only "two or three yeares old," and Edward Barber 
 does not deny the fact while he defends the right to restore the 
 "lost" ordinance. R. B. admits to P. B. that "until some time 
 lately there were no baptized people in the world" — no immer- 
 sionists; and if the Baptists, before and after Featley, make such 
 admissions, then we know just what Featley meant, namely, that 
 adult immersion was a "splinter new practice" in England. He 
 could not, with the Baptist lights before him, have meant any- 
 thing else; and he is only one of fifty or sixty writers in the 17th 
 century, Baptist and Pedobaptist, who consistently confirm the 
 1 641 thesis of the restoration of the "disused" practice of immer- 
 sion by the English Baptists. Any other conclusion is utterly 
 impossible. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 tO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— ContinuKd. 
 
 Dr. Featley was one of the most learned and able enemies of 
 the Baptists of 1640-41 ; and on account of his ability and prom- 
 inence in the controversy which raged from 1640-41 onward, 
 and since he is in dispute in this present discussion, I have given 
 his testimony elaborate treatment. The other enemies whose 
 testimony I here give, some of them at least, are quite as learned 
 and able as Dr. Featley. 
 
 1. The first historic mention of Baptist immersion by the 
 enemy is from John Taylor (A Swarme of Sectaries, and Schis- 
 matiques, &c, London, 1641), who puts in rhyme the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 "Also one Spilsbury rose up of late, 
 (Who doth or did dwell over Aldersgate) 
 
 He rebaptiz'd in Anabaptist fashion 
 One Eaton (of the new found separation) 
 A Zealous Button-maker, grave and wise, 
 And gave him orders others to baptize ; 
 Who was so apt to learne that in one day, 
 Hee'd do 't as well as Spilsbury weigh'd Hay. 
 This true Hay-lay-man to the Bank-side came 
 And likewise there baptized an impure dame, &c." 
 
 This author gives the usual classification of the Baptists — and 
 so claimed by themselves — as the "new found separation," that 
 is, the latest separation among the Separatists. He makes it 
 evident, also, that Spilsbury, who "rose tip of late" to rebaptize 
 Eaton, began to immerse about 1641, the year in which Taylor 
 wrote. Eaton, it will be remembered, was in the secession from 
 
 213 
 
214 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 the old Jacob-Lathrop Church in 1633 and "with others," at the 
 time, "received a further baptism." Baptized in infancy, he re- 
 ceived another baptism when he became an Anabaptist in 1633, 
 making two baptisms — both no doubt by aspersion. In 1638 
 he is evidently with Spilsbury, who was pastor of the 1633 se- 
 cession; and now "of late," in 1641, he is rebaptized again by 
 his pastor, Spilsbury, in "Anabaptist fashion," which was now 
 immersion, this being Eaton's third baptism — a practice so often 
 charged to the Baptists after 1641. Eaton, a layman, as in- 
 structed by Spilsbury, immediately proceeded to baptize others. 
 All this accords with the date and detail of the Kiffin MS. and 
 with Crosby's account. In 1641 Blunt by the "first method" of 
 revival introduced regular baptism; and at the same time Spils- 
 bury by the "last method" of revival introduced irregular bap- 
 tism — that is, by an unbaptized administrator upon Spilsbury's 
 own theory that "baptizednesse is not essential to the admin- 
 istrator of baptisme." See pp. 100, 101, no, in, this volume. 
 
 2. A Tract (The Book of our Common Prayer, &c, London, 
 1 641), speaking of the growth and power of the sectaries, among 
 whom the Anabaptists are mentioned, "swarming in every city," 
 points to the discovery of a "base sect of people called Rebap- 
 tists lately found out in Hackney Marsh neere London." On 
 page 8, it is said : 
 
 "About a Fortnight since a great multitude of people were met going 
 towards the river in Hackney Marsh, and were followed to the waterside, 
 where they were all Baptized againe, themselves doing it one to another, 
 some of which persons were so feeble and aged, that they were fayne to 
 Ride on Horsebacke thither this was well observed by many of the inhab- 
 itants living thereabouts, and afterwards one of them Christened his owne 
 Childe, and another tooke upon him to Church his owne wife, an Abom- 
 inable Act, and full of grosse Impiety." 
 
 Although this does not favor Anabaptism on the part of "one 
 of these" who "Christened his owne Childe," yet upon the 
 whole it looks Anabaptistic and was characteristic of the disorder 
 which immediately sprung out of the new movement; and this 
 fact is characteristic of the irregularity of the movement at first 
 as pointed out by Bampfield and as shown in the chapter on The 
 Bampneld Document, to which I refer the reader. 
 
 3. S. C, in reply to A. R. , in two volumes under the same 
 title (A Christian Plea for Infant's Baptisme, &c. , London, 1643) 
 
What the Enemy Said. 215 
 
 says, in the second work, Preface to the Reader (p. 4), of the 
 Anabaptists that they 
 
 "deny and disclaime the Ordinance of Baptism which they have received 
 in the Apostacie. . . . Yea, they entangle themselves so in the bryars 
 and thornes of the wildernesse that they are driven now to hold a Church 
 all of unbaptized persons ; and that though none of them be baptized, yet 
 the said Church may set apart one or more of her unbaptized members, 
 and give them authority to baptize themselves and others ; and yet they 
 grant that baptisme may be where there is no Church, and so (casting 
 away the baptisme which they formerly received) they are driven (in 
 taking up their new baptisme) to affirm that an unbaptized person or per- 
 sons may and must baptize themselves, and after that baptize others, else 
 true baptisme can never be had." 
 
 This is precisely the position held by Baptists at the time — 
 except in all cases, self-baptism — as shown by Baptist authorities 
 and especially by Bampfield. Against A. R.'s dipping, S. C. 
 opposes "sprinkling or washing" as the Scriptural mode; and 
 A. R. declares that the baptism of the Church of England was 
 sprinkling, which he renounced in 1642 as having received it in 
 infancy, showing that long before 1641 sprinkling was the Pedo- 
 baptist mode in England. 
 
 4. In a controversy between I. E., Pedobaptist, and T. L., 
 Anabaptist, (The Anabaptist Groundwork for Reformation, &c, 
 London, 1644), on page 23, I. E. asks T. L. this question: 
 
 "I ask T. L. and the rest of those Baptists or Dippers that will not be 
 called Anabaptists [though they baptize some that have been tivice baptized 
 before) what rule they have byword or example in Scripture for going men 
 and women together unto the water for their manner of dipping?" 
 
 Speaking of Christ washing the disciples' feet he asks why 
 (p. 23) Baptists do not obey this command. "Is it because," 
 says he, ' 'it makes not so well for your planting of new churches 
 as the others?" Again he says (p. 24): 
 
 "These [Baptists] and all other such like gatherers of people together, 
 builders and planters, which comes so near their strain in framing and 
 settling churches to themselves in their independent way, under the pre- 
 tence of casting off all the abominations of Antichrist, and practicing to 
 the state of the churches of the Apostles' times ; let them and all others 
 who in other kinds seem to endeavor a reformation take heed, &c." 
 
216 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 The unchallenged charge of baptizing those "twice baptized 
 before" — made by P. B. and others also — is proof that the Ana- 
 baptists before 1641 were sprinkled (1) in infancy, (2) when 
 they separated, and (3) were dipped when immersion was 
 adopted by the Baptists. Hence I. E. calls Baptist churches 
 "new churches;" and he points out the current Baptist posi- 
 tion of "having thrown off the abominations of Antichrist," and 
 of having inaugurated a "reformation" of their own. 
 
 5. William Cooke (A Learned and Full Answer to a Treatise 
 intitled The Vanity of Childish Baptisme [A. R.], London, 
 1644). On pages 21, 22, he says: 
 
 "Fourthly, will not this manner of dipping be found also against the 
 Seventh Commandment in the Decalogue ? For I would know with these 
 new dippers whether the parties to be dowsed or dipped may be bap- 
 tized in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may 
 keep the water from some part of the body, and then they are not rightly 
 baptized ; for the whole man, say they, must be dipped. Againe I would 
 ask what warrant they have for dipping or baptizing garments more than 
 the Papists have for baptizing Bells ? Therefore belike the parties, must 
 be naked and Multitudes present as at John's baptisme, and the parties 
 men and women of riper years, as being able to make a confession of their 
 faith and repentance, etc." 
 
 The objection that Cooke more fully quoted would show his 
 ignorance and enmity regarding Baptists — his view of dipping, 
 in the light of the 6th and 7th commandments, as dangerous 
 and lascivious — in no way affects his characterization of Baptists 
 as "new dippers." Many learned men of the time likeFeatley, 
 Baillie, Baxter, Edwards, Goodwin, Cooke and others regarded 
 dipping as dangerous to health, and often heard that it was 
 naked and indecent in its performance ; but their ignorance or 
 enmity in this respect did not argue their ignorance of the fact 
 that the Baptists had recently introduced it into England or had 
 not practiced it in England before 1641. The Baptists them- 
 selves admitted the fact and defended their right to restore ; and 
 hence the Pedobaptists with their view of baptism, had no hes- 
 itation in calling them "new dippers." Cooke was contending 
 with A. R., and knew all about the subject in controversy; 
 and he is right in line with Featley, Barebone, Baillie, Pagitt 
 and the Baptists themselves as to their "new baptisme" — that is, 
 
What the Enemy Said. 2 1 7 
 
 new in practice to the Baptists and new in fact to the Pedo- 
 baptists who had never seen or heard of adult immersion in 
 England since infant baptism had taken the world. 
 
 6. Ephriam Pagitt (Heresiography, London, 1645) speaking of 
 divers sorts of Anabaptist heretics mentions a new-crotcheted 
 sort called "Plunged Anabaptists" as follows: 
 
 " Yea at this day they have a new crotchett come into their heads, that all 
 that have not been plunged nor dipt under water, are not truly baptized, 
 and these also they rebaptize; and this their error arizeth from ignorance 
 of the Greek word Baptize which signifieth no more than washing or ablu- 
 tion as Hesychus, Stephanus, Scapulae, Budens, great masters of the 
 Greek tongue, make good by many instances and allegations out of many 
 authors." 
 
 It has been objected that Pagitt was not held in high esteem 
 by his contemporaries — that he was "a good old silly body, of 
 whom people make fun" — but the Dictionary of National Biog- 
 raphy, Vol. XLIIL, p. 65, speaks of him as a "great linguist," 
 and says that his "accounts of the Sectaries are valuable, as he 
 makes it a rule to give authorities." Whatever his views of bap- 
 tism, or his ability as a critic, he was well acquainted with the 
 Sectaries and with the fact that immersion had been recently 
 adopted by the Baptists; and from his point of view he was cor- 
 rect in 1645 tnat ^ e y h a d " a ne w crotchett come into their heads 
 &c." Like Featley, Baillie, Edwards and others, whatever 
 identity he creates between them and the Anabaptists of Luther's 
 time upon the common principle of rebaptism, he does not con- 
 nect them by dipping. The "new crotchett" had come into the 
 heads of the English Anabaptists at "this [his] day" embracing 
 the late period of introduction, 1640-41; and he copies from 
 Featley the significant fact : ' ' They flock [now] in great multi- 
 tudes to their Jordans &c." It is objected that Pagitt's assertion 
 that both dipping and sprinkling were allowed in the English 
 Church is an emphatic affirmation that dipping was then the 
 practice of that church and was not new at that time in England ; 
 but although infant dipping was "allowed," then as now, it was 
 not practiced and had been "disused" since the year 1600, with 
 only here and there an exception. What Pagitt was criticizing, 
 as a "new crotchett" lately come into the heads of the Baptists, 
 was exclusive adult immersion — a thing unknown in England at 
 
218 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 the time it was introduced — contrary to the law of the English 
 Church which "allowed" while it did not practice immersion 
 even as an alternate form with sprinkling. This is the same posi- 
 tion assumed by Barebone, Featley, Baillie, Edwards and all the 
 rest against the exclusive form of Baptist immersion which nul- 
 lified sprinkling and pouring as baptism — the great offense of Ana- 
 baptism since 1641, as rebaptism by any mode was the great 
 offense before that date. 
 
 7. Josiah Ricraft (A Looking Glasse For the Anabaptists, &c. , 
 London, 1645) whose work is an assault upon Kiffin's "Briefe 
 Remonstrance," says of Kiffin (p. 1, to the "Courteous Reader):" 
 
 " He pretends a new light, and takes upon him to set up a New found 
 Cliurch, and by this means seduceth and draweth away mens wives, chil- 
 dren and servants to be his prosylites." 
 
 He charged Kiffin with "erecting new-framed churches" to 
 which Kiffm replied as we have seen heretofore and upon which 
 answer Ricraft (p. 6) thus retorts: 
 
 " For your Answr to this my secon Querie, instead of showing Scripture 
 warrant for such a private man as you are, to erect a new framed Congre- 
 gation ; you allege your own practice, that your Congregation was erected 
 and framed even in time of Episcopacy, and that before you heard of any 
 Reformation; I pray you what answer doe you thinke in your con. 
 science, this is to the Querie propounded ; . . . I put the question againe 
 more particularly, What Scripture warrant private persons have, to gather 
 of themselves Churches., either under Episcopacy or Presbytery . . . That 
 cannot help you that you say your pretended Congregations were erected 
 before you heard of any Reformation ; And if it should be granted yours 
 possible might be, yet what shall we say to those multitudes of Congrega- 
 tions that have been erected since they heard of Reformation?" 
 
 This is but another confirmation of the fact that the English 
 Baptists were Separatists from the Reformers, so confessed by 
 Kiffin himself to Poole whose Queries were framed by Ricraft. 
 Their churches were "new found," "new framed" — that is, lately 
 self-organized under a self-originated baptism and ministry, 
 whether before or after the Puritan or Presbyterian Reformation. 
 Hence the Baptist ministry, in 1645, wer e called "private per- 
 sons " because in the Pedobaptist view they had no ecclesiastical 
 succession and no official authority to preach, baptize or erect 
 
What the Enemy Said. 219 
 
 churches. Therefore their separation was schismatical and heret- 
 ical; and hence Ricraft presses the usual question of Scriptural 
 warrant for self-originated baptism or the right to organize 
 churches under a baptism, to begin with, which the Baptists had 
 heretofore originated at the hands of men not baptized themselves. 
 Kiffin does not pretend to deny this fact growing out of the re- 
 cent introduction of immersion by the Baptists; but he defends 
 Baptist separation and reformation from the charge of schism 
 and heresy upon the ground that Presbytery was still in the hands 
 of Antichristian heresy and corruption, and that the Baptists had 
 erected their churches upon the principle of believers' baptism 
 according to the rule of Christ and had made a better reforma- 
 tion, even before the Presbyterian movement of 1643-49. 
 
 Kiffin agrees, as seen heretofore, that when Ricraft's Ref- 
 ormation got rid of its abominations, that the Baptists who had 
 separated from the Reformers, would "return" to them. This set- 
 tles the question of Baptist origin and its late date in England — 
 and that too at the hands of William Kiffin, than whom there is 
 no better authority among the writers of the 17th century. He 
 was confessedly a Separatist, and so of his entire church, in 1645 > 
 and he so speaks of Baptists in general as Separatists, and as 
 having reformed upon the rule of Christ, and "before'' the 
 Presbyterian Movement, 1 643-1 649. Every Baptist preacher 
 and church down to 1641 and onward, were Separatists. So 
 far as I can find there were no original Baptists, or Baptist 
 preachers,^ in England until towards the latter end of the 17th 
 century. Smyth, Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, Blunt, Barber, 
 Kiffin, Jessey, Knollys, Tombes, Hobson, Lamb^Allen, Kilcop, 
 Keach, Stewart, Owen — down to Collins, 1692 — all came out from 
 the Pedobaptists; and this is simply one of a multitude of proofs of 
 the late Separatist origin of the English Baptists. Even the 
 "intermixed" Anabaptists, 1633-38, who originated the Particu- 
 lar Baptists, were Separatists from the Puritans when they 
 organized churches of their own persuasion. 
 
 8. Author of the Loyall Convert (The New Distemper, Ox- 
 ford, 1645). The subject of this work is government or dis- 
 cipline, necessary in religion to the state. The Old Distemper 
 was Romanism swept away by Episcopacy and Episcopacy sub- 
 stituted by Presbytery. The "New Distemper" is Separatism — 
 especially Anabaptism. On page 14, among other disorderly 
 things charged, it is said : 
 
220 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 "Have not professed Anabaptists challenged our Ministers to dispute 
 with them in our churches ? . . . Have they not after their disputations 
 retired into their Innes, and private lodgings, accompanied with many of 
 their Auditors and all joyned together in their extemporary prayers for 
 blessings upon their late exercise ? How often hath Bow River (which 
 they lately have baptized New Jordan) been witness to their prophana- 
 tions." 
 
 Anabaptism was chiefly the "New Distemper" as the latest 
 Separation of any importance; and a fling is here made at their 
 newness by a reflection upon the river Bow as their li New 
 Jordan" — "lately" so "baptized." 
 
 9. John Eachard (The Axe Against Sin and Error, &c, Lon- 
 don, 1645), on P a £ e 8> says : 
 
 "For here is the cause of all the sects and divisions in Christendome; 
 for when men have lost baptism, then one sect will devise to get remission 
 of sins one way as by a Pope's pardon, by pilgrimage, or in Purgatory. 
 The Anabaptists by a new baptisme, and by a new church way, not ap- 
 pointed by Christ, but invented by themselves, to make them more righteous, 
 and holy, and clean than others, that are not of their way, and therefore 
 will not communicate with others, &c." 
 
 This is the usual charge by the Pedobaptists of the 17th Cen- 
 tury ; and the charge is admitted and defended by the Baptists 
 — except that their baptism and church newly erected were sim- 
 ply the old way "new-found," and discovered to them through 
 the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 10. Nathanael Homes (A Vindication of Baptizing Believers 
 Infants &c, 1645). In his Epistle to the Reader, (p. 2) he 
 says : 
 
 "But the unsatisfactory calling of the Anabaptist-Administrators of 
 their pretended better baptisme, upon a former worse-conceited-bap- 
 tisme; being not extraordinarily called, or not having the first seale them- 
 selves; or being Sebaptists, that is, self-baptizers; or baptized with the old 
 sort of Infant-baptisme : (in either of which they are most unlike to John 
 the Baptist) hath justly caused many to hold off from them, and many to 
 fall away from them. And many that are with them, to be at a loss where 
 to rest. One congregation at first adding to their Infant baptism, the 
 adult baptisme of sprinkling; then not resting therein, endeavoured to 
 adde to that, a dipping, even to the breaking to pieces of their Congre- 
 
What the Enemy Said. 221 
 
 gation. Since that the Minister first dipped himself. Not contented 
 therewith, was afterward baptized by one that had only his Infant bap- 
 tism." 
 
 Here we have a clear view of Anabaptist transition from 
 sprinkling to immersion; and we have here the fact revealed 
 that not only before 1641, but even down to 1645 with some of 
 them, sprinkling was their mode of baptism. On p. 193 Homes 
 calls Anabaptisme, "Catapaedobaptisme, denying Baptisme to 
 believers' infants." Homes also clearly shows the disorderly 
 way in which, at first, many of the Baptist reformers, in adopt- 
 ing immersion, gradually proceeded to restore the lost ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 11. John Saltmarsh (The Smoke in the Temple, &c, London, 
 .1645). On page 14 Saltmarsh gives the heading: "Anabaptism 
 So-Called; What it is, or What they Hold;" and then he goes on 
 to state their position. Among their positions he gives the fol- 
 lowing: "That the Church or Body, though but of two or three, 
 yet may enjoy the Word and Ordinances by way of an Adminis- 
 tratour, or one deputed to administer though no pastour" — 
 which is correct. On page 15 he makes the following heading: 
 "Exceptions to the grounds of the new Baptisme" — that is, of 
 the Baptists; and he speaks, on page 16, of their baptism as 
 "dipping them in water." The "new baptisme" he speaks of is 
 believers' dipping; and he objects to the grounds upon which the 
 Baptists established it by what he considered their novel view of 
 Matt. 28:18 and Luke 16:16, namely, that- "all administration 
 of Ordinances were given to the Apostles as Disciples" — not as 
 officials — and hence their theory : "That the Church or Body, 
 though but two or three, yet may enjoy the Word and Ordi- 
 nances by way. of an Administratour, or one deputed to admin- 
 ister though no pastour." This was the Spilsbury thesis of be- 
 ginning a Baptist church de novo where Baptism was lost — and 
 so of Smyth before him and of all the Baptist authorities of the 
 17th century after him. 
 
 12. John Geree (Vindiciae Paedo-Baptismi, &c, London, 
 1645). After a long and vigorous reply to Tombes' twelve argu- 
 ments against infant baptism, Geree concludes (p. 70) as follows : 
 
 "Anabaptists I conceive are of three ranks. First some in faction that 
 embrace it because it is new, and different from the received doctrine, they 
 affect singularity to be counted somebody." 
 
222 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Thus English Anabaptism was itself called ' 'new" by this able 
 and learned Pedobaptist. 
 
 13. Steven Marshall, B. D. (A Defense of Infant Baptism, 
 &c., London, 1646). Comparing, on page 74, the English Ana- 
 baptist doctrines and disorders with those of Germany, Marshall 
 ■says : 
 
 "Verily one egge is not more like another then this brood of new 
 opinions [lately hatched in England and entertained among them who are 
 called Anabaptists) is like the spawne which so suddenly grew up among 
 the Anabaptists of Germany ; and ours plead the same Arguments which 
 •theirs did ; and if they flow not from the same Logicall and Theologicall 
 principles,, it is yet their unhappy fate to be led by the same spirit." 
 
 On page 75 (to Tombes) he says again: 
 
 "And for what you alledge out of the London Anabaptist Confession, I 
 acknowledge it the most Orthodox of any Anabaptist Confession that I 
 ever read (although there are sundry Heterodox opinions in it) and such 
 an one as I believe thousands of our new Anabaptists will be farre from 
 owning, &c." 
 
 Although Marshall charges similarity of doctrine and disorder 
 among the English and German Anabaptists, he does not organ- 
 ically or ceremonially connect them. He calls the English 
 Anabaptists, "ournew Anabaptists ;" and he says that their brood 
 of new opinions were "lately hatched in England." No writer of 
 the period, however he compares the English and German Ana- 
 baptists with each other, ever connects them by baptism or 
 organization. 
 
 14. Robert Baillie (Anabaptisme the True Fountaine of Inde- 
 pendency, &c, London, 1646). On page 53 Baillie states the 
 Baptist position of his day accurately : 
 
 "This is clear of baptism, for they require in a baptizer not only no 
 office, but not so much as baptism itself, all of them avowing the lawful- 
 nesse of a person not baptized to baptize and as it seems, to celebrate the 
 Lord's Supper." 
 
 On page 153, after stating the Baptist argument for dipping as 
 against sprinkling, he says : 
 
 "However we deny both the parts of the proof, Sprinkling and Dipping 
 are two forms of Baptisme, differing not essentially, but accidentally, cir- 
 
What the Enemy Said. 223 
 
 cumstantially, or modally, so to speak, and till very late the Anabaptists 
 [English] themselves did not speak otherwise." 
 
 On page 163 he says : 
 
 "The pressing of dipping and exploding of sprinkling is but a yesterday 
 conceit of the English Anabaptists. 
 
 "Among the new inventions of the late Anabaptists, there is none with which 
 greater animosity they set on foot, then the necessity of dipping over head 
 and ears, then the nullity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration 
 of baptisme. Among the old Anabaptists , or those over sea to this day so 
 far as I can learn, by their writs or any relation that has yet come to my 
 ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling came never upon the Table. 
 As I take it they dip none, but all whom they baptize, they sprinkle in the 
 same manner as is our custome. The question about the necessity of dip- 
 ping seems to be taken up onely the other year by the Anabaptists in Eng- 
 land, as a point which alone, as they conceive, is able to carry their desire 
 of exterminating infant baptisme : for they know that parents upon no 
 consideration will be content to hazard the life of their tender infants, by 
 plunging them over head and ears in a cold river. Let us therefore con- 
 sider if this sparkle of new light have any derivation from the lamp of the 
 Sanctuary, or the Sun of Righteousnesse, if it be according to Scripturall 
 truth, or any good reason." 
 
 On pages 178, 179, Baillie closes his discussion by asserting 
 that the ancient testimonies in favor of dipping did not hold the 
 form '"'unchangeable" or "necessary;" and he says: 
 
 "When any writer, either ancient or modern, except some few of the 
 latest Anabaptists [English], is brought to bear witnesse of any such asser- 
 tion, I shall acknowledge my information of that whereof hitherto I have 
 been altogether ignorant." 
 
 Baillie is in perfect accord with the facts of history in the as- 
 sertion that until very lately the English Anabaptists never 
 adopted dipping as the exclusive form of baptism — making a 
 nullity of sprinkling and pouring — just as Barebone and others 
 declared and just as Crosby affirms as charged by all Pedobap- 
 tists at the time immersion was restored. Baillie is right also in 
 affirming that such was never the position of the "old Anabap- 
 tists" of 1525, over sea — that the question of dipping and 
 sprinkling never came upon the table of controversy with them — 
 
224 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 and that at the time he wrote they dipped none, but sprinkled, 
 as the Pedobaptists universally did. Of course, there was a 
 small exception, at the time, the Rhynsburgers and Poland Ana- 
 baptists who had adopted immersion, respectively, in 1620 and 
 1574 ; but the great body of Mennonites and others of the "old 
 Anabaptists" were sprinkling, and had so done from the first, 
 with, here and there, some exceptions, in which, however, im- 
 mersion was not exclusive or a matter of controversy. From 
 Baillie's standpoint immersion was not only a matter of recent 
 introduction among the "late Anabaptists" of England — "taken 
 up onely the other year" — but it was a "late invention," a 
 "sparkle of new light," and intended as a new and effectual de- 
 vice against infant baptism, by prejudicing parents against it, in 
 pressing the fact that immersion was Scriptural. He seems to 
 have forgotten that infant dipping was once the custom in Eng- 
 land; but this is another evidence of the fact that, in 1646, in- 
 fant immersion had long since fallen out of use. 
 
 On page 16 Baillie speaks of the "Mennonist dippers" who 
 oppose the humane nature of Christ, according to Clopenburgh 
 (Gangraena Theologiae Anabaptisticae, xlix., p. 63), but Clo- 
 penburgh, in this passage, does not call the Mennonites "dip- 
 pers." I suppose Baillie was simply calling them by their name, 
 " Doopsgezinden," notwithstanding which they are, and were 
 then, sprinklers and not dippers — and always have been, accord- 
 ing to the best Doopsgezinde authority. On page 30 he speaks 
 of the "new-gathered Churches of rebaptized and dipped 
 saints" among the German and Swiss Anabaptists at the "begin- 
 ning of their rebaptization ;" and while they actually began by 
 sprinkling, some of them did dip, as at St. Gall and other places. 
 No doubt Baillie here alludes to those who thus practiced ■ but he 
 in no way contradicts himself in the assertion that, at the time he 
 wrote, the "old Anabaptists, over sea," did not dip, but 
 sprinkled, as Pedobaptists everywhere did, and as the ' 'latest Eng- 
 lish Anabaptists" had done until "the other year" 1641, when they 
 changed from affusion to immersion ; and he claims it as a yester- 
 day conceit among the English Anabaptists. He does not mention 
 the date, 1641, as the Jessey Records actually do and as Barebone 
 practically does, but he implies it. Baillie has been charged 
 with prejudice and slander against the Baptists and therefore not 
 a competent witness. So of Featley, Edwards, Baxter, and 
 others who charge "naked baptism" and other gross irregulari- 
 
What the Enemy Said. 225 
 
 ties upon our old brethren; but in all these charges they fol- 
 lowed the common or general reports, and were no more bitter 
 in their controversies with the Baptists than the Baptists with 
 them. Both sides were equally harsh in what they said to each 
 other. 
 
 15. B. Ryves (Mercurius Rusticus, London, 1646). On page 
 21, speaking of the state of things at Chelmsford, he says: 
 
 "But since this magnified Reformation was on foot, this Towne (as in- 
 deed most Corporations, as we finde by experience, are Nurceries of Fac- 
 tion and Rebellion) is so filled with Sectaries, especially Brownists and 
 Anabaptists, that a third part of the people refuse to Communicate in the 
 Church Liturgie, and half refuse to receive the blessed Sacrament, unlesse 
 they may receive it in what posture they please to take it. They have 
 among them two sorts of Anabaptists ; the one they call the Old men or 
 Aspersi, because they were but sprinkled ; the other they call the New men, 
 or the Im??iersi, because they were overwhelmed in their Rebaptization." 
 
 Even down to 1646 the Anabaptists, all of them, had not 
 given up their sprinkling, and they were called the "Old Men, or 
 Aspersi" sprinklers. They were the old sort known before 
 1640-41 ; and the new sort, the "New Men, or Immersi" immer- 
 sionists, were those who dated from 1640-41, and who, accord- 
 ing to Evans, gradually cast the new sort into the shade. In 
 this same year, Homes, as we have seen, gives us an insight into 
 this kind of division among Anabaptists in England ; but Evans 
 says that after 1646 both bodies of the Baptists became entirely 
 immersionists. The year 1646 gives us the last glimpse of 
 sprinkling among the Anabaptists. The very fact of calling the 
 immersionists of 1646 "New Men" as distinguished from the 
 "Old Men" called aspersionists — among the Anabaptists — is a 
 clear implication that, formerly, the Anabaptists sprinkled or 
 poured for baptism. There was no such distinction down to 
 1 64 1, when the Anabaptists began to immerse, and after which 
 they were called "New Men" because they immersed — and be- 
 cause immersion was il new" among them. The "Old Men," 
 or aspersionists, in 1646, were simply those of the Anabaptists, 
 prior to 1641, who had not yet adopted immersion and were still 
 persisting in this "old" mode of sprinkling — which, however, 
 ceased among them after this date, as Evans says, with both 
 bodies of the Baptists. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1 64I, A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 WHAT THE ENEMY SAID— Concluded. 
 
 16. Thomas Edwards (Gangraena, London, 1646). From be- 
 ginning to end, Edwards takes for granted the recent introduction 
 of immersion in England by the Baptists. On page 1, Pt. I., he 
 
 says: 
 
 "The first thing I premise, which I would have the Reader to take no- 
 tice is, that this Catalogue of Errors, Blasphemies, Practices, Letters, is 
 not of old errors, opinions, practices, of a former age, dead and buried 
 many years ago, and now revived by this Discourse ; but a catalogue now 
 in being, alive in these present times, all of them vented and broached 
 within these four years, yea most of them within these two last years, and 
 lesse." 
 
 After enumerating 176 errors, blasphemies, &c, he says on 
 page 36, Pt. I., as follows: 
 
 "Now unto these many more might be added that I know of, and are 
 commonly known to others, which have been preached and printed within 
 these four last years in England (as the necessity of dipping and burying un- 
 der water of all persons to be baptized, &c.)." 
 
 Throughout his work he constantly assails ''dipping" as the 
 new mode of rebaptization and the "Dippers" as "new lights" — 
 such as Oates, Hobson, Clarkson, Knowles, Patience, Denne, 
 Kiffin and nearly all the rest known to the Anabaptist history of 
 the time. On pages 138, 139, Pt. III., he repudiates the compli- 
 ment "harmlesse" paid to the Anabaptists by Master Peters 
 (1646) and calls it a "false epithete." "For what sect or sort of 
 men since the Reformation this hundred years," he asks, "have 
 been more harmfull?" After mentioning the tragedies, rapes, 
 
 226 
 
 
What the Enemy Said. 227 
 
 tumults, &c, charged against the old Anabaptists in "severall 
 parts of Christendome," he says: 
 
 "If we look upon our Anabaptists at home, and consider what many 
 things they have done and are doing; how can we call them harmlesse?" 
 
 Among other things they were doing (in 1646) he cites in the 
 following words: "Who kill tender young persons and ancient 
 with dipping them all over in Rivers, in depth of Winter;" and so 
 he continues the catalogue of evils of which they were now 
 guilty. He concludes by saying: "And yet Anabaptists of our 
 times are guilty of all these and many more." 
 
 Edwards identifies the Anabaptists of 1646 with those of former 
 times, even a hundred years before, upon the principle of rebap- 
 tism, schism, violence, &c, but not by "dipping." The error of 
 dipping belonged only to "our Anabaptists at home' 1 — to the 
 "Anabaptists of our time" — in England; and nowhere in the 
 Gangraena are the Baptists of 1641-46 organically or ceremo- 
 nially related with the Anabaptists of 1525 and onward. Ed- 
 wards (Pt. III., p. 177) like Featley wishes for a public disputa- 
 tion in England, authorized by Parliament, between the Anabap- 
 tists and Pedobaptists, to settle the question of baptism — as by the 
 Senate of Zurich, 1525 — but the opinion that the Zurich decree 
 involved dipping which is wholly erroneous, does not imply that 
 Edwards or Featley believed that the English Anabaptists had 
 been dipping for 121 years, or that they were connected by or- 
 ganism or dipping with the Anabaptists of 1525. Edwards' idea 
 was that the English Anabaptists like the Swiss would be defeated 
 in debate and suppressed by law; and whatever Edwards' or 
 Featley' s notion about the punishment of drowning at Zurich as 
 applicable to dipping, both of them refer exclusive immersion 
 solely and only to the English Anabaptists after 1641. Featley 
 calls it the ' 'new leaven" of the English Anabaptists; and Ed- 
 wards confines it within "four years" down to 1646, which would 
 reach back to about 1641. On pages 188, 189, Part III., he 
 says : 
 
 " There~s one of the first Dippers in England, one of the first that 
 brought tip the trade, of whom I heard a modest good woman say that had 
 observed his filthy behavior, &c, that it was no wonder that he and many 
 had turned Dippers to dip young maids and young women naked, for it 
 was the fittest trade to serve their turns that could be, &c." 
 
228' English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Here it is clear that he points to one of the originators of im- 
 mersion in England as a matter of knowledge on his own part, 
 and in perfect consistency with his position that the dipping of 
 the Anabaptists originated in the "four years past" back to 1641. 
 He knew "one of the first who brought up the trade" — "one of 
 the first Dippers in England." 
 
 However true or false Edwards' notion of the abuses of dip- 
 ping among the Anabaptists, he is perfectly harmonious with the 
 history of its restoration by the Baptists of England, 1640-41. 
 He mentions no specific date except as comprehended in the ex- 
 pression "four past years" down to 1646, which is speaking 
 either in round numbers, or according to the Puritan reckoning 
 which would make 1641 to be 1642. He is in line with Bare- 
 bone who claimed, 1643, that the total dipping of the Baptists 
 was "onely two or three years old" and with Baillie who fixes it 
 "onely the other year." Watts in 1656 put the date back as "13 
 or 14 yeare agoe," and so agrees with Barebone and Edwards; 
 and they all have substantial agreement with the Jessey Records 
 which accurately fix the date at 1641. 
 
 17. John Drew (A Serious Address to Samuel Oates, &c, Lon- 
 don, 1649). Samuel Oates wrote a book (A New Baptisme and 
 Ministry, etc., 1648, 4to), a Baptist production in conformity 
 with Baptist position of his day, but which I have not been able 
 to find. John Drew, however, so replies to it and quotes it, that 
 we are able to understand precisely Oates' position as that the 
 "Baptisme and Ministry" of the Baptist churches were "new" 
 and based upon the current Baptist ground for restoration by un- 
 baptized administrators — all of which Drew antagonizes upon the 
 current Pedobaptist ground of succession under the defection of 
 Antichrist. From page 6 to 18 he makes the usual argument 
 against restoration by an unbaptized administrator, namely, that 
 if the ordinances were lost they would have to be revived in an 
 extraordinary way by a new commission and the like, and on page 
 14, he says : 
 
 " Thus in going a few steps backward, you must necessarily hang all 
 the weight of your new Baptisme and calling either, (1) Upon one who was 
 a Se-baptizer, Or (2) upon one who rested content with his owne infant 
 baptisme [i. e., an unbaptized administrator]." 
 
 After trying to show the illogical and unscriptural position of 
 establishing a new baptism and ministry upon the administration 
 
What the Enemy Said. 229 
 
 of a self-baptized or an unbaptized originator of the ordinance, he 
 asks again : 
 
 "But suppose, Sir, you had a third maybe, and that a surer one 
 whereon you might hang the weight of your new Baptis7iie and Calling, viz : 
 An Administrator from some Church of Anabaptists beyond the seas, in 
 Holland, or some other place. (I do but guesse sir, because I know not 
 to what shelter you may take yourself) so that may be S. 0.[ates] was bap- 
 tized by Mr. Lambe, and Mr. Lambe by some rebaptized Minister of a 
 foreign church ; upon this account the matter would be a little better. For 
 then I Querre : 
 
 " How came he to be your Minister ? by what authority did he baptize 
 that first person in England who baptized Mr. Lambe ? " 
 
 Here according to Oates' theory of a new baptism and calling, 
 or ministry, Drew argues that even if he should prove his succes- 
 sion from the Anabaptists of Holland who had no more right to 
 begin lost baptism than the English, he would reduce his baptism 
 and calling to a • 'nullity." The inference is that Drew had heard 
 the report of Blunt's going to Holland for immersion, and that he, 
 the first immersed person in England, had immersed Lamb; and 
 he argues here that even if Oates had his baptism from Lamb, it 
 would not help his claim to his "new baptism and ministry." 
 The strong point in the testimony lies in the fact that not simply 
 Drew, but Gates, a prominent Baptist preacher, takes the position 
 that the "Baptism and Ministry" of the Baptist churches were 
 "new." From page 19 to 38 he gives a "word of advice" to 
 Oates' congregation in Lincolnshire, and urges them, on page 21, 
 to look into the "warrantablenesse of that chiefe thing" which 
 submitted them to Oates' "ministry," their "second Baptisme ;" 
 and he closes by saying : 
 
 "If therefore the Infant's right to that Ordinance be confirmed, I shall 
 easily have the unwarrantablenesse of your late dipping granted me." 
 
 18. Nathanael Stephens (A Precept For The Baptisme of 
 Infants, &c, London, 1650). This book includes a two-fold 
 reply to Robert Everard, Baptist, by Stephens and William 
 Swayne. On page 1, Epistle to the Reader, Stephens says: 
 
 "I found that the point which they [the Anabaptists] did bind very 
 much upon was this; that there was no word of command for Baptisme of 
 Infants in the New Testament. I found that this principally moved them 
 
230 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 to renounce the old, and take up a A r ew Baptisme; to leave the old, and to 
 joyne themselves to a New Church." 
 
 On page 2, speaking of Everard, his antagonist, he says : 
 
 "And therefore to a man who maketh it one of his chief designs to set 
 up a neiu church, to erect a neza Ministry, and to cast all into a new mould, 
 what better principle can he have to begin withal than a New Baptisme.'''' 
 
 From page 63 to 66 is an Appendix: "The Answer of 
 William Swayne, &c., to Mr. Everard' s book, &c." Everard had 
 taken the position that Swayne, as all other Pedobaptists, was 
 to be regarded as a heathen, because unbaptized, Matt. 16:18. 
 In reply (p. 65) Swayne says : 
 
 "If Heathen, because not baptized after their manner, and consequently 
 no church; then Mr. Everard and those of his judgment, were no church 
 before they received their new Baptisme ; but they were Pagans as well as 
 others. If they were no true church, their first Administrator was no 
 true Administrator, because there was no church to conferre an office 
 upon him. Therefore they must say, he had his first Commission imme- 
 diately from heaven, unlesse they will affirme that Heathens have power 
 to make an Administrator of Baptisme. Now this is contrary to the 
 Scripture, which saith, they ordained Elders in every church, Acts 14, 23. 
 Therefore in the ordinary way the Church is before the Elders or Admin- 
 istrators. But if they shall say there was an Administrator before a 
 church, as John Baptist; and therefore in like manner they may have such 
 a one. If they say this they must prove from the Prophets that the 
 Gospel-Churches must have two Baptists, be twice planted : which sup- 
 poseth no Gospel Church in the world before the Second Baptist to plant 
 a new church. 
 
 "Farther also they must say that there is a second Christ before whom 
 the second Baptist must come as forerunner : And so new institutions, 
 and foundations of Ordinances, Baptists, Apostles, Miracles; and whither 
 will not this conceit come ? But if they say that the Commission of 
 Matt. 28:19, was their first Administrator's rule, then he must be a Dis- 
 ciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching, before he had any 
 authority to Minister their new Baptisme, who ever he was. And was 
 taught by some Heathen (think they), or by a Disciple? By a Heathen 
 they cannot say. And if by a preaching Disciple, then Christ had a dis- 
 ciple before their new Baptisme. Therefore they that want [need] this 
 New Baptisme, cannot be stated Heathens. And how foule then was 
 
What the Enemy Said. 
 
 231 
 
 their assertion at Withibrook, to callus Heathens out of their order? And 
 yet have neither command nor example in Scripture for their Baptisme, 
 in reference to their first Minister's Commission or Authority." 
 
 This extract needs no comment as showing the true position 
 of Baptists and of the controversy between them and Pedobaptists. 
 The Baptists held to the restoration of a new church and a new 
 ministry by a new baptism, erected, after being lost, by the Scrip- 
 tures; and here we see a specimen of Pedobaptist logic based 
 upon Pedobaptist premises — succession. 
 
 19. John Goodwin (Water-Dipping, &c, 1653; Philadelphia, 
 &c, 1653; Catabaptism, &c, 1655, London). In the first work 
 Goodwin speaks, in the title, as follows : 
 
 "Considerations proving it not simply lawful, but necessary also (in 
 point of duty) for persons baptized after the new mode of dipping, to con- 
 tinue communion with those churches, or imbodied Societies of Saints, of 
 which they were members before the said Dipping. ' ' 
 
 He uses the expressions "New Baptism," and "the Brethren 
 of the New Baptism;'"' "Brethren of the New baptized churches;" 
 "new Dippers of men and Dividers of churches;" "new Bap- 
 tists" (pp. 8-26), repeatedly. On page 31 Goodwin says: 
 
 "To plead that a person unbaptized, may administer Baptism in case of 
 necessity, is a sufficient plea indeed thus understood, viz.: 1. When God 
 himself adjudgeth and determines the case to be a necessity; and 2. 
 Authorizeth from heaven any person, one or more, for the work, as he did 
 John the Baptist. Otherwise Uzziah had as good or better reason to judge 
 thai case of necessity, in which he put forth his hand to stay the Ark, 
 then our first unhallowed and tindipt dipper in this Nation had to call that 
 a case of necessity, wherein the sad disturbance of the affairs of the 
 Gospel, yea and of civil peace also, he set up the Dipping Trade." 
 
 . On page 36, he affirms "by books and writings" that the 
 Baptists who ' 'have gone wondering after dipping and Rebap- 
 tizing, have from the very first original and spring of them 
 since the late Reformation, been very troublesome, &c." On 
 page 39, he points out the fact that since immersion was intro- 
 duced, there were "several editions, or man-devised modes of 
 Dipping" invented, each succeeding edition rendering the 
 former insufficient or irregular, and that some had been dipped 
 three or four times. "For the mode of the latest and newest 
 
232 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 invention," he says, "it is so contrived and so managed, that 
 the Baptist who dippeth according to it, had need be a man of 
 stout limbs, &c. " He evidently refers here to our present mode 
 of baptizing a candidate backwards — the mode hitherto having 
 been to press the head of the candidate forwards into the water. 
 The backwards mode was adopted about 1653 — showing the 
 gradual progress of the late introduction of immersion. 
 
 Goodwin (p. 39) regards Nicholas Stork, or some one of the 
 German Anabaptists of 1521 as the author of the practice of 
 baptizing others without himself being baptized, after that 
 "exotique mode in this nation," as* he terms it in England. In 
 other words it had been adopted lately in England, and was 
 "new" and not indigenous to the soil; for he speaks of the "first 
 unhallowed and undipt dipper in this nation," who "set up the 
 Dipping Trade," and he affirms the origin of the Dippers, their 
 very first and original spring since the late Reformation," and 
 the mode "exotique" 
 
 In his Philadelphia, Goodwin deals in the same expressions 
 about the "New Baptisme," "the way of the New Baptism," 
 "the Brethren of the New Baptisme" and the like; and so he 
 does repeatedly in his Catabaptism, where he calls it the "new 
 mode of water-dipping." In his reply to Allen's complaint about 
 his oft-repeated use of the expression, he says,- (p. 8) Epistle to 
 the Reader: 
 
 "Heretofore in discoursing with a grave minister of Mr. A.'s in the 
 point of rebaptizing, and the most ancient that I know walking in that way, 
 finding him not so well satisfied that his way should be stiled Ana-baptism, 
 I desired to know of him what other term would please him. His answer 
 was, Nezv Baptism." 
 
 On page 143 Goodwin answers Allen's evasion of the charge 
 of "new baptism," and marvels that "Allen and his partizans 
 can falsifie themselves touching the authentiqueness of their new 
 Baptism." "For," says he, "all persons baptized in infancy, 
 being judged by them unbaptized, and there being no other but 
 such in the nation, when their new Baptism was first adminis- 
 tered here, it undeniably follows that the first administration of it 
 was a mere nullity." There is no mistaking Goodwin's under- 
 standing of Baptist position and the fact of the late introduction 
 of immersion by the Baptists of England. He needs no com- 
 ment. 
 
What the Enemy Said'. 
 
 233 
 
 20. James Parnell (The Watcher, or Stone Cut Out of the 
 Mountain, &c, 1655, London). On pages 16, 17, 18, Parnell 
 employs a long paragraph without a period in it which begins 
 and closes thus : 
 
 "Now within these late years . . . one cries, k> here is Christ, if you 
 can believe and be baptized you shall be saved ; so they that can say that 
 is the way, and that they believed Christ dyed for them, then they must 
 be dipped in the water, and that they call baptizing of them, &c." 
 
 Parnell was speaking of the Anabaptists; and he not only 
 clearly states their position, but he truly refers to their recent 
 practice of dipping by the expression: "Now within these late 
 years." He is in exact line with all the host of writers, Baptist 
 and Pedobaptist, who touch the subject. 
 
 21. John Reading (Anabaptism Routed, &c, London, 1655). 
 On page 100, Reading accuses the Anabaptists, by rebaptism, of 
 crucifying Christ afresh. "How," asks he, "do they crucify 
 him afresh to themselves, that is as much as in them is ? Why 
 I. They are said to do so, who iterate, 0/ again do, or resume 
 that which is a resemblance or similitude of Christ's sufferings, 
 who died but once : for in reiterating it we make the first void ; 
 and so if we have a new baptism, we must have a new Christ, 
 &c." On page 171 he says that the Anabaptists — 
 
 "obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to delude souls, by 
 causing them to renounce their Baptism by taking another Baptisme un- 
 der a vain pretense that they were not susceptive of Baptisme in their in- 
 fancy, nor lawfully baptized, neither at all, if happily they were not 
 dipped under water ; for they say the institution of Christ requireth that 
 the whole man be dipped all over in water : so that the Anabaptists now 
 hold, that dipping the whole body in water is essential to Baptizing, &c." 
 
 By the phrase "new baptism" Reading does not simply mean 
 rebaptism as distinct from infant baptism, and without reference to 
 mode as was sometimes the case, but he especially meant dipping, 
 by the word "now" "So that the Anabaptists," he says, "now 
 hold that dipping the whole body in water is essential to Baptiz- 
 ing." In other words, he means that they did not formerly hold 
 to thajt practice. 
 
 22. Jeffry Watts, B. D. (Scribe, Pharisee, Hypocrite, &c, 
 London, 1656). This book was written by an Episcopalian to a 
 
234 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 Baptist neighbor by the name of John Wele, who wrote him 
 some very severe and abusive "queries." The work is divided 
 into separate parts under different titles ; and in his address To 
 the Reader, under the head, "The Dipper Sprinkled," on page 
 3, Watts says : 
 
 "Yea this I have done, as for the convincing of the Anabaptists their 
 dipping, or immerging Baptism (so called) to be a Novelty.'''' 
 
 Just above on the same page he charges "upon that Dipping; 
 that it was, and is, as I have said, a New Business, and a very 
 Novelty." On pages 3, 4, he says : 
 
 "I wonder at the Iron-brow, and Brazen-face of novel [Baptist] Inde- 
 pendency, and New light, that whereas it is every Seventh day at least, in 
 the chimney-house Conventicles prating against the Old, Laudable, and 
 Ancient Practices of this our, and other reformed Churches, it dares pre- 
 tend to Antiquity (so contradicting itself), and glory of it in this point, of 
 their immersing and Dipping (calling it the Good old way), &c." 
 
 Under the head of the Narration of the Dipping by a Baptist 
 whose name is not given, the said Baptist, on page 3 of the Nar- 
 ration, says : 
 
 "I am sorry to hear you call it a New business, for it is older than your 
 sprinkling of Infants, though indeed that hath been so long practiced 
 generally, that this Old Good Way seems now a new Thing : And no 
 wonder, for we read that the song the Saints sing for their deliverance 
 once out of Antichristianism, is turned to be, as it were, a new song, 
 Rev. 14:3. And no wonder though the old Practices of the Saints be, as 
 it were, a new thing to the World, and unto their Leaders." 
 
 It is to this criticism that Watts now delivers himself under 
 the head: "The Dipper Sprinkled," whom he styles the Hypo- 
 crite. On pages 1, 2, he replies: 
 
 "And you have as little cause to be sorry at my calling your Dipping a 
 new business (unless with Heraclitus you can weep at everything you hear). 
 I called it so indeed, and shall here now make the Calling true, as in 
 word, so in deed; so far is it from being older then our sprinkling of In- 
 fants, that your self helpeth it forward, saying, That this hath been so 
 long practiced generally, that your good old way (of Dipping) seems now 
 a new thing. It seems so to you, it is so to me. You make me in the 
 
What the Enemy Said. 235 
 
 meantime no whit sorry but glad, to see you moved somewhat upon the 
 charge of a new thing or business. Are not all your things now new ? and 
 your whole business, is it not new, or nothing?" 
 
 On page 2, he continues to say : 
 
 "Your Dipping, a new Business;" "your inglorious new Thing and 
 Business, namely your late Dipping amongst us;" "your new Dipping." 
 
 In the case of the Much-Leighs dipping, given in the narrative 
 above mentioned, Watts finds an additional novelty in the method 
 of baptizing two women which he now goes on to discuss under 
 several heads, namely: 1. Was not the person dipping a new 
 thing? 2. The Persons dipped, a new thing? 3. The place 
 where, a new thing? 4. The very dipping itself, in its action and 
 manner, a new thing? (pp. 3-9.) The person dipping was a 
 Lay-Brother and an unbaptized administrator ; the party baptized 
 was already baptized, according to Watts; the manner of dipping 
 was in clothes which he claims was also new even among Baptists; 
 he holds that the dipping of the person in a pond, and not in a 
 river or a baptistery, was new; and he denies that the action of 
 dipping in itself is Scriptural or customary in England, (p. 32.) 
 On page 40 he says : 
 
 ' ' The Church of England hath been now of a long time, time out of mind y 
 mind of any man living, in firm possession of baptis?n, and practice of it by 
 sprinkling, or pouring on of water upon the face and forehead, and gently 
 washing and rubbing the same therewith and pronouncing the word of Institution, 
 In the name, &fc. It is your part to bring the Writ of Ejection, a word, or 
 the example of the word sufficient to dispossess and eject us out of our 
 baptism, and to invest yourself unto the same, by shewing your better title 
 and plea of dipping and immerging the whole body in or under the 
 water" 
 
 Here Watts settles the question, as an English churchman, as 
 to the disuse of infant immersion and its substitution by sprink- 
 ling by the close of the 16th century; and he clearly affirms that 
 the dipping of adults in England was only a late innovation upon 
 the established rite of sprinkling in the Kingdom. 
 
 On page 63, Watts assumes that immersion had ceased for 500 
 years "in the purest and perfectest Western churches;" but he 
 affirms the continental origin of "new men" (as compared with 
 
236 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 ancient) who were (in 1524) "the progenitors and predecessors'* 
 of the English Anabaptists and who, "against the constant and 
 uniform custom of the Western church, were the first dippers 
 and immersers in the West" — at which time, 132 years before, 
 he regards immersion a "novelty," that is, as he says, "in com- 
 parispn of antiquity" Then he adds : 
 
 " Nay, your Brother's dipping and immerging is not so old as theirs, for 
 your Ancient Fathers Nicholas Stork, or Stock and Thomas Muncer, did 
 not dip in your manner, [i. e. in clothes and ponds] ; nor is it as old as 
 your elder Brothers, who about 13 or 14 year ago, ran about the Coun- 
 trey ; for they did not dip in your manner, in their cloathes, but naked, 
 nor in Ponds but Rivers ; nor is it elder than yourselves were in the day 
 that you and they practiced it and begot it in the Parish of Much Leighs 
 upon the bodies of the two Sisters you dipt in June last past, and so is but 
 a brat and brood of yours and theirs, not a twelve month old yet by a good 
 deal." 
 
 In all this Watts regards the age of the dippers in England as 
 only 13 or 14 years which preceding 1656 would go back to 
 about 1 641-2. The clothes and pond dipping he regarded as not 
 twelve months old. Whatever be true or false with regard to 
 naked baptism among the General Baptists at first — a thing the 
 Particular Baptists repudiated — Watts fixes their beginning as 
 dippers according to the history of the case; and he not only 
 calls the dipping of the two women, but the whole thing, a 
 "novelty" of but 13 or 14 years standing in England — a "new 
 business." So he calls the immersion of 1524 a novelty as com- 
 pared to antiquity, and so likewise the dippers of that date "new 
 men" as compared with the ancient. He calls these dippers, as 
 he supposed they all were, the Progenitors and Predecessors of 
 the English Baptists; but he does not imply their connection by 
 the succession of dipping, but only by a similar practice which 
 in England was not simply a comparative "novelty" but wholly a 
 "new business." The practice of sprinkling had beyond the 
 memory of man been established by the English Church; and 
 the Baptists may be regarded as lately come in with immersion as 
 a Writ of Ejection to dispossess the English Church of its sprink- 
 ling by a better title. 
 
 23. Thomas Wall (Infants' Baptism from Heaven, London, 
 1692). Besides charging, on page 22, that the Baptists of Eng- 
 
What the Enemy Said. 237 
 
 land received their Baptism from John Smyth — indignantly denied 
 by Crosby and Collins — he says: 
 
 " For as Water Baptism is confessed by the Anabaptists to be a part of 
 God's worship, see Mr. Keach's Book, Gold Refin'd, P. 47, in these words, 
 Water Baptism is a part of Instituted Worship and service of God, with- 
 out an express word drop'd from Christ or his Apostles, is Will-worship. 
 Therefore by their own Grant, the way they come by their Baptism is 
 Will-worship, and so Idolatrous, until they can prove it lawful for a man 
 to Baptize himself, or that an unbaptized Person should Baptize another, 
 and then that Person so Baptized, should Baptize him from whom he re- 
 ceived his Baptism." 
 
 This is, away down to 1692, still the controversy between Bap- 
 tists and Pedobaptists ; and the above is the exact statement of 
 Baptist position which no Baptist denied, except as to John 
 Smyth. Even with him they did not deny their organic beginning, 
 but with him they denied their baptismal origin, and hence put it 
 somewhere this side of Smyth. The Jessey Records say 1640-41 
 and so practically say others. 
 
 I close the case with these witnesses among the enemy. I 
 have more but these will suffice. In all, I have cited about 
 twenty-eight Baptist and twenty-four Pedobaptist authorities, be- 
 sides the Jessey Records — fifty-two in all — and consistent with 
 each other and with the facts in the case, from beginning to end. 
 There is not a discrepancy, of any value, anywhere to explain; 
 and in all my search among the authorities of the 17th century, 
 original sources, I never found a single contradiction of the thesis 
 that the Baptists restored immersion in England about 1640-41. 
 I have adopted Crosby's first history of the English Baptists, as 
 the basis of my position ; but I have not trusted him without an 
 examination of his original sources of information. I find him 
 correct; and I have only made this section of Baptist history more 
 elaborate than he did, without evading the issue at any point. It 
 is possible that my Pedobaptist authorities have been severe upon 
 Baptist practice and have exaggerated the abuses of immersion in 
 its irregular introduction ; but in stating the position of Baptists 
 and the facts of their history during the 17th century, they are 
 perfectly consistent with the Baptists themselves. Smyth, Hel- 
 wys, Morton, Hutchinson, Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence, The 
 Jessey Records, Kiffin, Bampfield, Grantham, A. R., R. B., Kil- 
 
238 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 cop, The Anabaptist Sermon, Cornwell, Denne, Blackwood, 
 Knollys, King, Jessey, Kaye, Allen, Lamb, Collins, Barber, 
 Crosby, Evans — all agree with Barebone, Featley, Taylor, The 
 Tract on the Book of Common Prayer, S. C, I. E., Cooke, Pagitt, 
 Ricraft, Author of Loyall Convert, Eachard, Homes, Saltmarsh, 
 Geree, Baillie, Ryves, Edwards, Drew, Stephens, Goodwin, Par- 
 nell, Reading, Watts and Wall. It has been urged that the 
 writer of the so-called Kiffin Manuscript was too sweeping in his 
 main sentence that down to 1640-41 none had been immersed in 
 England — that he did not know what he was saying to be true ; 
 but all these men ought to know what they were talking about. 
 If there had been an immersion church in England prior to 164 1, 
 these authorities would have known something of the fact before 
 the close of the 17th century, and we should have heard of it. 
 They were all over the Kingdom; and their testimony cannot be 
 offset by subsequent traditions and current opinions which have 
 since originated. 
 
 There may have been sporadic cases of adult immersion, as in 
 the case of infant immersion, between 1609 and 1641 — or be- 
 tween 1500 and 1600 — but they are historically unknown. Even 
 if such cases existed, they count nothing in the great 1641 move- 
 ment, in which the whole body of Baptists — unconscious of such 
 cases — joined in the revival of immersion and claimed a self- 
 originated "beginning" or "reformation." The traditions of 
 Anabaptist organism or immersion before 1611-1641 are utterly 
 exploded by the claim and practice of the "English Baptists" of 
 1 64 1 and onward; and even if they then knew of any such tra- 
 ditions — as we now have — they regarded them as having no 
 succession value and made them no factor in the revival or re- 
 formatory movement which originated their church, ministry and 
 baptism, according to the Scriptures, as newly "recovered" and as 
 having been "lost." So speak these witnesses, Baptist and Pedo- 
 baptist, whom I have put on the stand. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 164I A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 SIGNIFICANT FACTS. 
 
 Under this head I shall mention some corroborative facts 
 which signify the introduction of immersion into England by 
 the Baptists about 1640-41. I have touched upon these facts 
 in the course of this work, but I wish here to emphasize them 
 for the better recollection of the reader; and among them I shall 
 include the "monuments" set up by Dr. Whitsitt in his book 
 (A Question in Baptist History, pp. 99-100). 
 
 1. The first significant fact is the silence of history before 
 1 64 1 regarding a single act of adult immersion among the Eng- 
 lish Anabaptists — especially between 161 1 and 1641. It has 
 been replied that there is no instance of sprinkling or pouring 
 mentioned among them; but in the recorded facts of history it is 
 clearly implied or taken for granted that they did sprinkle or 
 pour if they baptized at all. Crosby says that, prior to 1640, 
 immersion was "disused" in England; and, in his rendering of 
 the so called Kiffin Manuscript, he says if the Anabaptists had 
 "revived" this "disused" ordinance it was not known — clearly 
 implying that, down to 1640-41, the date of the Manuscript, 
 they were sprinkling or pouring. The Bampfield Document 
 implies the same thing; and Evans, Hutchinson, Spilsbury, 
 Tombes, Lawrence and all the controversial writers of the 17th 
 century who touch the subject confirm the plain implication. 
 With the exception of the Collegian ts (1620), the Dutch Ana- 
 baptists were practicing sprinkling; and not only is history silent 
 as to English Baptist immersion before 1640-41, but it clearly 
 implies that the English Anabaptists were sprinkling or pouring 
 like their Dutch brethren across the sea. The very fact of 
 reviving immersion in England — so elaborately recorded by 
 Crosby — is proof that the English Anabaptists were sprinkling 
 before the revival. William Kaye (see p. 197) undoubtedly 
 
 239 
 
240 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 points to the period prior to the revival of immersion by the 
 Baptists as a time when the Anabaptists sprinkled. He says : 
 
 ''When WE were sprinkled great darkness, in comparison of the light of 
 the Gospel [Baptist] reformation that now shineth, was then as a cloud 
 over-vailing the Word." 
 
 He refers to this former sprinkling as believers' baptism Tike 
 that of the twelve (Acts 19) in ignorance of the Holy Ghost, 
 and rebaptized by Paul. So the Baptists, sprinkled under the 
 cloud over-vailing the word, had now rebaptized under the light 
 of the immersion reformation. 
 
 2. Another significant fact is that there is no evidence in 
 1640-41 that there was in England a single Baptist church, or 
 Baptist preacher, or Baptist church member, of original Ana- 
 baptist origin apart from separation from the Puritans or other 
 Pedobaptists. Such men as Kiffin, Lamb, Allen and others did 
 not hestitate to acknowledge that the Baptists were separatists 
 and reformers; and we know that the two original organizations, 
 respectively of the General and Particular ^Baptists, were sepa- 
 ratist bodies. So of many others known to history: Smyth, 
 Helwys, Morton, Spilsbury, Jessey, Barber, Kilcop, Ritor, 
 Blunt, Kiffin, Knollys, Tombes, Hobson, Lamb, Keach, 
 D'Anvers, Owen, Blackwood, Cornwell, Powell, Stennett, 
 Collins — all with but little exception of a later date down to the 
 close of the 17th century, had been baptized in infancy, and 
 had separated from the Pedobaptists. They lived all over the 
 Kingdom, preached in every quarter, and such men must have 
 known if there were any Baptist churches, preachers or 
 people who antedated 161 1 and practiced immersion before 
 1 64 1. Cornwell lived and labored in Kent; and if Eythorne 
 and Canterbury churches had been of the ancient Baptist origin 
 and continuance claimed for them, and had come down to 1641 
 with a regular ministry and baptism, he would have known the 
 fact, and he would have been the last man on earth to claim, as 
 he does, that Baptists had but lately heard and obeyed the 
 voice of Christ with regard to dipping. So of Powell in Wales. 
 So of Kiffin, Tombes, Oates, Hobson, Lamb and others preach- 
 ing and debating all over the Kingdom. Such men never would 
 have admitted that Baptists were separatists and reformers — 
 that their churches were newly erected under a baptism origi- 
 nated by unbaptized administrators — if there had been any 
 
Significant Facts. 241 
 
 succession Baptist churches, ministry or immersion in England. 
 There may have been old Lollard or Anabaptist elements in 
 many places, having long retained some sort of conventicle ex- 
 istence, which sprang into Baptist churches and adopted immer- 
 sion after 1641, and so continued to claim their ancient descent; 
 but there were no Baptist churches in England before 161 1, and 
 there was no Baptist immersion in England before 1641. R. 
 B. in 1642 (A Reply to the Frivolous and Impertinent Answer 
 of R. B., &c, 1643), said "that at some time lately there were 
 no baptized persons in the world" — that is, no Baptists so made by 
 immersion. R. B. was a Baptist in controversy with Barebone, 
 and he spoke advisedly, no doubt referring to the late introduc- 
 tion of immersion in 1641 to which Barebone alludes in 1643 
 when he declared that "totall dipping" in England was only "two 
 or three years old or some such short time." 
 
 3. It is a significant fact that the first commitment to jail, so 
 far as history shows, for the practice of immersion in England 
 took place after 1641, in the year 1644, in the county of Suffolk, 
 when Laurence Clarkson was imprisoned for the specific offense 
 of teaching and practicing immersion as baptism. The second 
 case was that of Henry Denne, who, in 1646, was imprisoned 
 at Spalding, in Lincolnshire, "for having baptized some persons 
 in a river there." (Crosby, Vol. I., p. 305.) Edwards (Gan- 
 graena, Pt. III., p. 117) inveighs against Baptist dipping and 
 wishes for a public disputation, like that of Zurich, 1530, in 
 order that Baptists found in "error" about immersion should be 
 punished for dipping. If after 1641 such civic proceedings 
 were desired or had against the simple practice of immersion, 
 we may be sure that before 1641 the spiritual and temporal 
 swords would have been employed with bloody severity if there 
 had been any such practice among the Anabaptists. There 
 were no such proceedings before 1641 in England, because there 
 was no such practice; for if there had been such a practice 
 among the Anabaptists the fact would have been known in 
 literature and in the court records of the time. It is objected 
 that before 1641 Baptists may have concealed their practice on 
 account of persecution ; but they are well known in other re- 
 spects of their history during this period, aside from the fact 
 that such a supposition is improbable, if not impossible, for 
 thirty years. It is objected again that immersion was the normal 
 mode in the English Church down to 1641, and therefore no 
 
 16 
 
242 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 notice was taken of Baptist immersion until after 1641, when 
 sprinkling had begun to obtain in the English Church; but his- 
 tory shows that sprinkling became general in the English Pedo- 
 baptist churches by the year 1600, and therefore the same ob- 
 jection to Baptist immersion would have obtained before as after 
 1 641, if such had been the practice. The offense of Baptist 
 dipping was that it was exclusive and nullified every other form of 
 baptism; and Crosby (Vol. I., pp. 96, 97) shows that while 
 Anabaptism by any mode which nullified the infant rite at the 
 beginning of the Reformation was the previous offense of re- 
 baptism, now (1640-41) the offense was exclusive immersion which 
 nullified every other mode of baptism. 
 
 This was the offense charged by Barebone, Featley, Edwards, 
 Baillie, Goodwin, and others ; and hence they pronounced it a 
 "very novelty" the il new leaven of Anabaptisme," only "two or 
 three years old," after but never before 1641. If this offense 
 which created such bitter controversy after 1641 — resulting in 
 several cases of persecution when liberty and light had been en- 
 larged — had existed before 1641 when the Star Chamber and 
 High Commission Court were in power, such men as Featley, 
 who had been watching the Anabaptists for "twenty years;" 
 would have made the fact known both in literature and judicial 
 proceedings, which would have multiplied by scores the case of 
 Clarkson and Denne. 
 
 4. The baptismal controversy which followed the year' 1641 is 
 another significant fact which points to the introduction of im- 
 mersion at that date. Crosby shows (Vol. I., pp. 96, 97) that 
 this controversy began in opposition to the revival of the prac- 
 tice of immersion as the exclusive form of baptism; and on 
 page 106 he shows that the introduction of this form of baptism 
 at the hands of unbaptized administrators was the "point much 
 disputed for some years." He says: 
 
 "The Baptists were not a little uneasy about it at first; and the Pedo- 
 .baptists thought to render all the baptizings among them invalid, for 
 want of a proper administrator to begin that practice : But by the excel- 
 lent reasonings of these and other learned men [Spilsbury, Tombes, Law- 
 rence and others], we see their [the Baptists'] beginning was well de- 
 fended, upon the same principles on which all other protestants built 
 their reformation." 
 
Significant Facts. 243 
 
 Then the gigantic controversy raged from 1641 to the close of 
 the century and onward for and against the introduction of im- 
 mersion (1) on the ground that it was exclusive, (2) upon the 
 ground that the Baptists had no proper administrator. Any one 
 conversant with the literature of the period knows that Crosby 
 states the truth in the case. In almost every discussion of the 
 baptismal question after 1641 the Baptists, among other ques- 
 tions, were assailed upon the validity of their exclusive baptism 
 restored by unbaptized administrators ; and in almost every re- 
 ply the Baptists defended their practice as based upon a Scrip- 
 tural right to restore the lost ordinance through unbaptized 
 administrators. 
 
 The question of believers' as opposed to infant baptism was 
 always involved, and had been in controversy from John Smyth 
 down to 1 641. Not only so, but Smyth, Helwys and Morton 
 had been charged with self-baptism and the want of a proper 
 administrator to begin baptism, as they had instituted it ; but as 
 they had adopted affusion, which made no exclusive claim as to 
 mode, but little warfare had continued against their self-originated 
 practice. The controversy down to 1641 turned chiefly upon the 
 question of believers' as opposed to infant baptism ; but after 
 1 641 the Baptists were constantly stung with the additional 
 stigma of the invalidity and novelty of exclusive immersion re- 
 stored by men who were not themselves baptized. By some 
 they were stigmatized with Smyth's self-baptism; but this charge 
 they always repudiated, and they invariably defended their 
 restoration of immersion as legitimately accomplished, according 
 to the Scriptures, by unbaptized administrators. The contro- 
 versy on this question dates from 1 641, and was never mooted 
 by Baptists or Pedobaptists before that date. In fact, there 
 never was any discussion between the Baptists and Pedobaptists 
 of England on the mode of baptism until after 1641 ; and this 
 controversy, as shown by Crosby, originated in the "revival of 
 immersion," as the exclusive mode of baptism, by the English 
 Baptists, at the hands of unbaptized administrators, about the 
 years 1640-41. Hence this baptismal controversy which raged 
 from 1640-41 and onward is a fact significant of the introduc- 
 tion of immersion at that date. The theory that immersion was 
 the normal mode in the English Church down to 1641, and 
 that therefore no controversy could take place as to mode until 
 after 1641 when sprinkling came into practice among Pedobap- 
 
244 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 tists, is absolutely contrary to all the facts of history in the case. 
 Crosby declares that immersion ended in the English Church in 
 1600 — that prior to 1640-41 "immersion had for sometime been 
 disused" — that the controversy on the mode of baptism originated 
 with the "revival of immersion" by the "English Baptists" — and 
 all the facts in the history of the controversy absolutely confirm 
 Crosby's position. 
 
 5. Another fact significant of the recent introduction of im- 
 mersion by the English Baptists about 1641 is that the Anabap- 
 tists were never called Baptists, in England, until after that date, 
 as in 1644 an d onward. The word "Baptist" grew out of the 
 usage which began with immersion when the Anabaptists were 
 called baptized people, baptized churches and hence, finally, 
 "Baptists," "Baptist churches," &c. The Baptists had always 
 protested against the name of Anabaptist which implied rebaptism 
 and which Baptists denied upon the ground that those baptized 
 by them from other sects had never really been baptized at all; 
 but it was not until after 1641 that they could the more effectively 
 get rid of the odious name of Anabaptism by adopting immersion 
 which "nullified every other form of baptism" and which gave 
 them the claim of being the only people who baptized at all — 
 and hence the only baptized people, par excellence , Baptists. The 
 Pedobaptists, with but little exception, still stigmatized them as 
 Anabaptists because, in their view, they still rebaptized those 
 who had been baptized in infancy, and they so continued to 
 stigmatize them down through the 17th and 18th centuries; but 
 the Baptists, still protesting that they were "falsely called Ana- 
 baptists," gradually came into possession of the name "Baptist" 
 — though often, at first, they spoke and wrote of themselves 
 without any designation, or as the "people of God," or as the 
 "gathered churches," or as the "baptized churches." The word 
 "Baptist" was greatly offensive to the Pedobaptists also because 
 it implied that none other than Baptists were baptized people ; 
 and hence they malignantly for this and the reason already speci- 
 fied kept up the stigma of Anabaptistry upon the Baptists after 
 1641. 
 
 The reason why the English Anabaptists were not called Bap- 
 tists before 1641 is because they did not practice immersion — 
 because they practiced sprinkling or pouring down to that date; 
 and while they protested against the stigma of Anabaptism, the 
 practice of the same mode with their opponents was only a repeti- 
 
Significant Facts. - 245 
 
 tion of the same ordinance. They made the same argument be- 
 fore as after 1641, namely, that believers' baptism was not a 
 repetition of infant baptism — and that it utterly nullified infant 
 baptism as no baptism; but it was not until 1641 when they 
 adopted exclusive immersion which nullified every other form of 
 baptism as no baptism, that they could be called a baptized peo- 
 ple — Baptists. It is objected that the titles Tanfer, Baptistae and 
 Doopsgezinden had been applied to some of the Continental Ana- 
 baptists at an earlier date ; but this fact in no way affects the his- 
 tory of the English Anabaptists who, for the reasons already 
 specified, could not have assumed the title, "Baptist," until after 
 the year 1641. So soon as they began to immerse they were 
 called the "baptized;" and almost simultaneously with the title 
 "baptized" came the designation, "Baptist" — a name given by 
 no writer, Baptist or Pedobaptist, as a historical claim to the 
 English Anabaptists before 1641. 
 
 6. It is a significant fact that, not until the year 1644, Oct. 16, 
 (Thomason), baptism is defined as "dipping or plunging the body 
 under water" in an English Baptist Confession of Faith (Article 
 XL.) — prescribing, in the edition of 1646, the manner in which 
 the ordinance was to be administered: "(yet so as convenient gar- 
 ments be both upon the administrator and subject with all mod- 
 esty)." In none of the Confessions of Smyth, nor in the Con- 
 fession of 161 1 is the word baptizo rendered to dip, for the 
 reason that the 1609-11 Anabaptists did not practice immersion; 
 and this definition and the subsequent caution about clothing in 
 the 1644-46 Confession presuppose the recent introduction of 
 immersion and the unsettled manner of its administration about 
 the year 1641 — as indicated by the documents and writers of the 
 time who pronounced it a "novelty" and who charged its ad- 
 ministration with gross irregularities, such as nude or semi-nude 
 baptism. 
 
 It has been variously objected that immersion was taken for 
 granted by Smyth and Helwys because of its universal preva- 
 lence among the Dutch Anabaptists and in the English Church, 
 1609-n; or that hitherto Baptists had "scrupled" the use of 
 "formal words" in order to evade persecution; or that the Eng- 
 lish Baptists were moved to insert immersion in their 1644 Con- 
 fession, by the rejection of dipping on the part of the Westmin- 
 ister Assembly in 1643. These objections are all invalid (1) be- 
 cause at the time of Smyth and Helwys the Dutch Anabaptists 
 
246 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 were practicing affusion, and immersion had gradually ended with 
 sprinkling in the English Church by 1600 and was "disused" in 
 England; (2) if immersion was the "normal mode" before 1641, 
 the Anabaptists had no need to fear persecution in the use of 
 ''formal words" by which to define baptism as immersion in their 
 creeds; and (3) in the Preface to the 1644 Confession the signers 
 make no reference to the Westminister Assembly and they de- 
 clare their object, at this time, to set forth their position accord- 
 ing to the word of God and to meet the misconceptions and mis- 
 representations of other people. They were still "falsely called 
 Anabaptists," as of old," upon the theory that they repeated bap- 
 tism; and they now put a "new" definition of baptism into their 
 Confession, which not only nullified infant baptism as no bap- 
 tism, as ever before, but which now nullified every other form of 
 baptism, as never before. Hence Featley calls this definition the 
 "new leaven of Anabaptisme," that is, "exclusive immersion," 
 which none of the old Anabaptists ever maintained. Featley 
 was precisely right as to the newness of the definition; and this 
 XL Article of the Confession of 1644 — with its caution about 
 the manner of baptism — indicates the recent introduction of im- 
 mersion in 1640-41. The first appearance of this definition, 
 after several Confessions of the English Anabaptists, in the 1644 
 Confession — especially in company with the caution about cloth- 
 ing — is significant of its "novelty" which had already repeatedly 
 been charged and defended with regard to immersion and the 
 manner of its administration since 1641 — never before. 
 
 7. The health and decency question (claimed in violation of 
 the 6th and 7th commandments) with regard to immersion after 
 1 64 1 is another significant fact which indicates its recent intro- 
 duction at that date. Before 1641 there is no record of any 
 antagonism to Baptists regarding baptism as dangerous to health 
 or morals. Between 1641 and 1646 there was almost a panic 
 among the Pedobaptists about the fatality of dipping people — 
 especially in winter; and the charge was repeatedly made that 
 the Baptists — some of them dipped men and women naked. 
 Samuel Oates (Crosby, Vol. I., pp. 236, 238) is cited as being 
 tried for his life at Chelmsford because Annie Martin died within 
 a few weeks after she had been "baptized by him." Baxter 
 and Cradock were prominent in their opposition to immersion 
 on the ground of health; and Baxter, Baillie, Cooke, Edwards, 
 Featley and many other prominent Pedobaptist writers con- 
 
Significant Facts. 247 
 
 stantly charged the Baptists with naked baptism. Grant that 
 there was no sense in all this furor, or that the charges were 
 false, it does not alter the indication that immersion was some- 
 thing new, and never heard of before 1641 among the English 
 Baptists. If they had been practicing immersion before that 
 date, the same charges would have made the fact known, and 
 their persecution would have been more prominent and effective; 
 but history is as silent as the grave regarding the health or 
 decency question charged to immersion in England before 1641. 
 Various objections have been raised as explanatory of this health 
 and decency furor on the part of the Pedobaptists who wanted 
 to prejudice the cause of the Baptists, but they do not get rid of 
 the fact that the furor indicates the newness of immersion among 
 the Baptists after 1641 — or that such a furor was unknown be- 
 fore 1 64 1, when sprinkling or pouring was as universal among 
 the Pedobaptists of England as after, and when the same fight 
 would have been made upon exclusive immersion as after, if the 
 Baptists had practiced it. 
 
 There are several other significant facts comprehended under 
 the head of Dr. Whitsitt's Monuments which I can only briefly 
 mention. 
 
 1. The historical fact heretofore mentioned at Chelmsford, 
 1646, (Mercurius Rusticus, p. 22) where there were "two sorts 
 of Anabaptists; the one they call the Old Men or Aspersi; be- 
 cause they were but sprinkled; the other they call the New Men, 
 or Lnmersi, because they were overwhelmed in their rebaptiza- 
 tion." Herein 1646 aspersionists are called il old men" while 
 immersionists are called "new men;" and since no such dis- 
 tinction ever existed among the English Anabaptists before 
 1641, it is reasonable to conclude that the "old men," or 
 aspersionists, describe the Anabaptists who antedated 1641, 
 while the "new men" or immersionists describe the Anabaptists 
 who adopted immersion in 1641. The singular fact is that 
 these "old men," or sprinklers, had continued down to 1646 
 and had not gone over to the "new" immersion lately adopted 
 in 1641; but it indicates the gradual change of some of the Ana- 
 baptists who were slow to adopt immersion. Evans (Vol. II. , 
 p. 79), as already seen, refers the above distinction to the Ana- 
 baptists, or Baptists, some of whom still followed the Mennonite 
 affusion; and he shows that after 1646 the Immersi "soon cast" 
 the Aspersi "into the shade" and "their practice became 
 
248 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 obsolete" when "immersion became the rule of both sections of 
 the Baptist community." N. Homes, (Vindication of Baptizing 
 Believers Infants, &c, p. 5, 1645) describes the state of Baptist 
 division as seen at Chelmsford. He says : 
 
 "One Congregation at first adding to their Infant Baptisme the adult 
 baptisme of sprinkling : then not resting therein, endeavoring to adde to 
 that a dipping, even to the breaking to pieces of their congregation." 
 
 Here are the Old Men or Aspersi in conflict with the New 
 Men or Immersi; and this revolution going on for several years 
 after 1641 under the distinction of the Old and New Men, or 
 the Aspersi and Immersi, in Baptist ranks, is a clear indication 
 of the recent introduction of immersion in 1641. 
 
 2. As cited by Dr. Whitsitt, de Hoop Scheffer (De Brown- 
 isten, p. 156) points to the fact that after 1641 the relation be- 
 tween the Mennonites and the followers of Helwys and Morton 
 who were so closely allied that in 1626 a movement (Evans, Vol. 
 II., pp. 24-30) was set on foot to secure an "organic union of 
 the two parties," was broken off. The fracture is traced only 
 to the adoption of immersion by the English Baptists in 1641 — 
 the bond of union between the two parties down to that date 
 having been sprinkling as the mode of baptism practiced by 
 both. Henceforth the Mennonites would be regarded by the 
 English brethren as unbaptized, and so the tie of fellowship was 
 broken and correspondence came to an end in 1641. It is 
 objected that the antagonism between the Mennonites and the 
 Baptists regarding footwashing, civic oaths, war, magistry, the 
 deity of Christ and the like; but upon these questions, according 
 to Muller and Evans, we trace the most fraternal correspondence 
 without any alienating difference down to 1631. Scheffer is 
 probably right; and if so this is another fact significant of the 
 introduction of immersion, 1641. 
 
 3. Dr. Whitsitt's seventh monument is the classic use of the 
 word 1'hantize employed soon after 1641 to antithesize immerse, 
 or to show a striking distinction between dipping and sprinkling. 
 A. R. so employed the word in 1642 in his Treatise of the 
 Vanity of Childish Baptism, p. n. Also Christopher Black- 
 wood (Antichrist in his Strongest Garrisons, &c, 1644) trans- 
 ferred the word to English and called it "rantized" Hanserd 
 Knollys (Edwards' Gangraena, Pt. III., p. 241), in 1646, speak- 
 ing to the Pedobaptisfs by the way of antithesizing i?mnerse, said : 
 
Significant Facts. 249 
 
 *'Yoii were rantized but not baptized" Thomas Blake, 1645, 
 contrasts rantizing not only with dipping but with pouring, the 
 latter mode being his practice. This usage Dr. Whitsitt claims 
 as another indication of the recent introduction of immersion in 
 1 641; and it is certain that no such distinction obtained among 
 the English Anabaptists before that date, although sprinkling 
 was the settled practice of the English Pedobaptists from 1600. 
 
 It is objected that the word rhantize is not broad enough to 
 antithesize immerse, and that the introduction of the word 
 pointed to a conflict between Pedobaptists, some of whom pre- 
 ferred pouring but "resented the change to sprinkling just then 
 introduced" — that is, in 1645, according to Blake, Wall and 
 others. "The new word," says the objector, "was not derived 
 to decide the departure from immersion to pouring [that is, 
 among Pedobaptists], but from pouring to sprinkling." But the 
 word rhantize was first introduced by the Baptists in 1642, in 
 order to distinguish classically and perfectly — as never before — 
 immersion from aspersion, and it indicates their new departure 
 from aspersion to immersion. 
 
 There are other significant facts which point to 1641 as the 
 date at which the English Baptists restored immersion, but these 
 will suffice. Everything I have cited confirms Crosby's history 
 of the revival of immersion at that date, and confirms the writ- 
 ings of the various authors I have cited and who confirm Crosby. 
 There is no inconsistency at any point between these significant 
 facts and the history of the case as established by Crosby, 
 Evans and the writers I have quoted so elaborately. The truth 
 is that the case is so plain that it amounts no longer to a proba- 
 bility, but to an established fact; and I cannot see how, with all 
 this array of testimony direct and circumstantial, any one can 
 escape the conclusion set up by history, 
 
 1. That immersion ended in the English Church in 1600. 
 
 2. That sprinkling which had already supplanted immersion, 
 became general, if not universal, from 1600 onward. 
 
 3. That the Anabaptists restored immersion in 1641. 
 
 4. That these Anabaptists must have practiced sprinkling or 
 pouring before they restored immersion, as their history goes to 
 show. 
 
 5. That their subsequent history, according to the writers 
 of the 17th century and the facts in the case, all points back to 
 1 64 1 as the date at which they began immersion. 
 
ENGLISH BAPTIST REFORMATION. 
 
 (FROM 1609 TO 1641 A. D.) 
 
 CHAPTER XXL 
 
 WERE THEY BAPTISTS? 
 
 Baptists preceded the baptism of Christ. The great forerunner 
 of the Redeemer was a Baptist. John was an immersionist and 
 an Antipedobaptist. He practiced believers' baptism only; and 
 in his refusal to immerse the Scribes and Pharisees without re- 
 pentance, or because they were the children of Abraham, he 
 repudiated the doctrine of federal holiness as a ground for 
 either infant or adult baptism. He was also an anti-ritualist 
 who, according to the Scriptures and Josephus, baptized with 
 reference to righteousness immediately wrought in the soul 
 through repentance and faith, and not mediately procured 
 through sacramental efficacy whether with or without repent- 
 ance and faith. John was, in every sense, a Baptist in principle 
 and practice; and, ceremonially, he made the Redeemer a 
 Baptist when he dipped him in the river Jordan. Christ made 
 Baptists of his twelve Apostles, who were immersed and who 
 were constituted an embryonic "church," with authority to settle 
 personal offenses according to Matt. 18:17 ; and the first church 
 at Jerusalem was a Baptist Church, including this apostolic col- 
 lege, which by its sovereign suffrage chose Mathias to take the 
 place of Judas, and to which the Lord "added" by repentance 
 and baptism 3000 souls on the day of Pentecost. This first Bap- 
 tist Church subsequently elected its own deacons and elders ac- 
 cording to its congregational sovereignty and independence ; 
 and all the apostolic churches, modeled after this first church, 
 were Baptist Churches to whom the apostolic epistles were ad- 
 dressed as sovereign and independent bodies, with their bishops 
 and deacons. These New Testament Churches were all immer- 
 sionist, anti-pedobaptist and anti-ritualistic bodies, separate and 
 independent of each other in polity; and while they voluntarily 
 co-operated with each other in advice, missions, or benevolence, 
 
 250 
 
Were They Baptists? 251 
 
 they knew nothing of organic union or ministerial office beyond 
 the pale of a local church. They were neither Papal, Episcopal 
 nor Presbyterial ; but each church was a self-governing democ- 
 racy under the law of Christ and the guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit. Christ was the sole Head and Priest in these churches ; 
 and when the Apostles died they left no successors except the 
 Scriptures as their authority. 
 
 It was thus that these Apostolic Churches entered the second 
 century ; but strange to say, they had already begun to aposta- 
 tize before the close of the first century as indicated by the 
 heresies of the Corinthians, Galatians and the seven churches of 
 Asia. By the middle of the second century sacramentalism had 
 become prevalent and infant baptism was its fruit. Congrega- 
 tional episcopacy had also popped its head above the clergy and 
 laity of the local church ; and before the close of the third cen- 
 tury diocesan, provincial, patriarchal and papal episcopacy had 
 developed. In the fourth century the union of Church and State 
 had been consummated; and at the beginning of the seventh 
 century the universal papacy of Rome was established over the 
 world by the sovereign authority of the emperors. Anti-catholic 
 sects began to revolt in the second century; and under different 
 names they continued to separate and spread, survive and 
 perish, until the 16th century Reformation. They were gen- 
 erally Antipedobaptists ; and in the 16th century they became 
 distinctly so in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, England, and 
 in other countries of Europe. Before the close of the 16th 
 century, however, with the exception of the Mennonites and a 
 few fragments on the Continent, they were again practically 
 crushed out of existence by the persecution of both Catholics 
 and Protestants. From the fourth century the woman had been 
 in the wilderness ; and although she had struggled to get out 
 and had revealed Antichrist a hundred times, she had as often 
 practically sunk back under the cloud of papal darkness and 
 despotism. Even the Mennonites and the Poland fragment of 
 Anabaptists were Socinians and afflicted with other heresies. 
 The Waldenses had been absorbed by the Pedobaptist Reform- 
 ers ; and it remained for the English Antipedobaptists, 161 1- 
 164 1, to make the last grand effort which fully and finally 
 brought the woman out of the wilderness. But for the Puritan 
 revolution and the abolition of the Star Chamber and High Com- 
 mission Court, 1641, in England, this Baptist reformation might 
 
252 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 have proved another failure; and instead of the triumph of 
 1611-1641, the church in the wilderness had had to wait for 
 another step in the progress of human liberty, before coming 
 out and up to the Baptist denomination as established in England 
 and now dominant in the United States and other parts of the 
 world. 
 
 Now with reference to these English Anabaptists, 1611-1641, 
 according to their own testimony during the 17th century and 
 onward, the following facts have been shown : 
 
 1. They claim to have been separatists from the Puritans, and 
 there were no original Baptist churches, ministers or people, 
 apart from separation, down to 1641 and later, known to his- 
 tory. 
 
 2. They admit that they originated their baptism and erected 
 their churches anew, at the hands of unbaptized administrators. 
 
 3. They claimed to assume this prerogative under ' 'discovery" 
 from God and according to the Scriptures as authority for restor- 
 ing Gospel order which they declared was " lost" in the "apos- 
 tasy." 
 
 4. They adopted immersion, 1640-41, some thirty years after 
 their separation and organization began. 
 
 5. They deny organic, baptismal or ministerial connection 
 with prior Anabaptists ; and while they all admit their origin by 
 unbaptized administrators, they generally held that when the 
 ordinance was restored, the necessity for restoration ceased, and 
 that its administration should be regular, or go on in an ' 'orderly 
 way." 
 
 6. The 1260 years of Antichristian reign and of the invisibility 
 of the church were regarded by them as reaching down to their 
 time; and they held that they had come visibly out of the wil- 
 derness — all prior Anabaptists having failed to do more than re- 
 veal Antichrist and having sunk back under the "smoke in the 
 temple " or into the invisibility of the spiritual church in the wil- 
 derness — having no Gospel order or baptism. 
 
 7. They all repudiated the doctrine of visible succession as the 
 "mark of the beast" — whether of church, ministry or baptism. 
 
 8. They were divided as to whether the church was constituted 
 by baptism or the covenant; as to close and open communion; 
 as to particular and general atonement; but they seemed to 
 agree that baptism introduced the believer into the general body 
 of Christ, and not into a particular church. 
 
Were They Baptists? 
 
 2 55 
 
 9. In fine they claimed to have established a " Reformation" 
 and to have had a "Beginning" of their own in England — based 
 upon the principle of believers' baptism in 1 609-1 633 and upon 
 the restored practice of immersion in 1640-41, including a newly 
 erected church and ministry; and they claimed that their Ref- 
 ormation originated in Separation from the Puritans based upon 
 a return to New Testament principles and practices which the 
 other Reformers had not reached — not even the Puritans them- 
 selves whose reformation they commended as far as it went. 
 
 The question arises here : Were these people Baptists ? Ac- 
 cording to historical usage the Anabaptists of England were 
 called "Baptists" before they restored immersion in 1640-41, 
 Crosby speaks of the "methods taken by the Baptists of Eng- 
 land, at their revival of immersion;" and he speaks of the 
 "difficulty which did not a little perplex the English Baptists" in 
 selecting these methods. After treating of the Blunt method of 
 sending to Holland for immersion, he speaks of the "greatest 
 number of the English Baptists, and the more judicious" who> 
 regarded the Blunt method as "needless trouble" and of Popish 
 "succession;" and he says: 
 
 " They affirmed therefore, and practiced accordingly, that after a gen- 
 eral corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably bap- 
 tize, and so begin a reformation." 
 
 Evans likewise calls the Anabaptists of England "Baptists" 
 down to the deputation of Blunt to Holland for immersion and 
 at the same time represents the followers of Smyth and Helwys. 
 as practicing the affusion of the Mennonites — some of them down 
 to 1646 — after which he says "both sections of the Baptist com- 
 munity" adopted immersion as "the rule" without a "solitary- 
 exception." The Bampfield Document speaks of the "methods 
 taken by the Baptists to obtain a proper administrator of baptism 
 by immersion, when that practice had been so long disused, that 
 there was no one who had been so baptized to be found." Rob- 
 inson speaks of "the Dutch Baptists" as "pouring" Here we 
 have a number of Baptist authorities who call Anabaptists,, 
 " Baptists," at the very time they claim they did not practice im- 
 mersion. Even the JDoopsgezinden, the Mennonite Doopers of 
 to-day, are so called, while they practice sprinkling. Dr. Jesse 
 B. Thomas in his review of Dr. Whitsitt (Both Sides, p. 47) uses 
 this expression "mixed Baptist churches," which indicates a, 
 
3. 54 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 greater looseness of usage than to speak of the Anabaptists as 
 "Baptists" before their adoption of immersion, since some of the 
 mixed churches in England retained not only sprinkled but 
 Pedobaptist members. 
 
 Wherever the principle of believers' baptism has been main- 
 tained by any people, the earlier writers have always called them 
 ' 'Baptists;" and so we naturally do at the present time. The 
 central peculiarity of the Baptists is believers' baptism as opposed 
 to infant baptism ; and the natural distinction is made by name 
 between Baptist and Pedobaptist, without reference to mode. 
 The Antipedobaptist is essentially a Baptist, other things being 
 equal, even when he practices affusion, as the Doopsgezinden do — 
 and as most of the Continental Anabaptists of the 16th century 
 and all of the English Anabaptists in the first half of the 17th 
 century, who were called " Baptists," did. Dr. Newman (Re- 
 view of the Question, pp. 1 71-173), after showing that "immer- 
 sion commanded a very small share of the attention" of the Con- 
 tinental Anabaptists of the 16th century — and after paying their 
 martyr devotion to Baptist principles the highest compliment- 
 closes by saying: 
 
 " They were not regular Baptists, but they were thoroughly imbued with 
 -Baptist principles, and were, in a very important sense, the forerunners of all 
 that was best in Puritanism and in the great modern Baptist movement. ' ' 
 
 All this was true of the English Antipedobaptists from 161 1 
 to 1 64 1. "They were not regular Baptists, but they were 
 thoroughly imbued with Baptist principles." N John Smyth 
 founded a church upon the Baptist model, believers' baptism 
 and a regenerate church membership; and, organically speaking, 
 this was the "beginning" of the present denomination of Bap- 
 tists, though begun with an unscriptural form of baptism. The 
 principle, however, was right, and the form was corrected in 
 1640-41 . The same was true of our Particular Baptist ancestors 
 in 1633 who began upon the same principle that Smyth and his 
 followers did; and while they were not afflicted with the Men- 
 nonite errors of the General Baptists, they had errors of their 
 own which they inherited from their Puritan origin. So far as 
 the mode of baptism was concerned — which was only one of 
 their errors — they both abandoned the wrong and adopted the 
 right; and we should give them credit for their reformation in 
 becoming strictly Baptistic and count them our brethren. 
 
Were They Baptists? 255 
 
 The English Baptists, whether General or Particular, seem to 
 be no sounder in Baptist principles and practices after 1641 than 
 before, excepting the mode of baptism. They retained errors 
 in doctrine and practice that were more vicious than the un- 
 scriptural mode of baptism, with but little exception — such as 
 the Socinian and other peculiarities of the Mennonites among 
 the General Baptists and the open communion and mixed 
 church practice of the Particular Baptists — and they were well 
 nigh as much in process of evolution towards modern Baptist 
 perfection in this country after 1641 as they were before. But 
 few if any of their churches after 1641, perhaps, would have 
 been now received into the fellowship of one of our Associa^ 
 tions; and with but a small exception of the English Baptist 
 brotherhood of to-day, the great mass of English Baptists in some 
 one respect or another could not organically affiliate with the 
 larger body of American Baptists. Such men as John Bunyan, 
 Robert Hall and Charles H. Spurgeon were open communion- 
 ists; and even Spurgeon left the "Baptist Union" of England, at a 
 recent date, because it was on the '-'down grade." The Baptist 
 fraternity in England even to-day are very much mixed and 
 divided and in error; and with the exception of a small body of 
 them, perhaps, fellowship and communion would be impossible 
 between them and the Baptists of this country. 
 
 Yet these people are Baptists who spring from their immersed 
 ancestors who antedated the year 1641; and from them we of 
 America also sprang. Therefore those old Anabaptists of 
 1611-1633 are our ancestors; and if we had no greater objection 
 to our claim of kinship with them than their mode of baptism 
 before 1641 we should h^ve greater reason to congratulate our- 
 selves upon our pedigree. Their aspersion or affusion was about 
 their smallest offense; and yet above all their errors they were 
 our heroic progenitors thoroughly imbued with our leading 
 principles and peculiarities. They may not have been regular 
 Baptists, but they were great and glorious in our principles and 
 in their sacrifices and sufferings for our peculiarities. They 
 were the English and American Baptist denomination in embryo; 
 and they have evolved a history which has helped to shape the 
 destiny of the world in the progress of Evangelical Christianity 
 and in developing the cause of religious and political liberty. 
 The Constitution of the United States has been pronounced by 
 Dr. Griffis, the Congregational scholar, "an Anabaptist docu- 
 
256 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 <! 
 ment;" and that production is the epitome and symbolization of 
 Baptist history based upon the teachings of such men as Smyth, 
 Helwys, Morton, Busher, Spilsbury and others who laid the 
 organic foundation of the Baptist denomination of to-day. 
 Blunt restored immersion to the Baptists; Keach restored minis- 
 terial support and singing in the churches; Andrew Fuller 
 restored theology; Carey restored missions; our fathers of 1776 
 restored liberty; somebody must yet restore a plurality of elders 
 to the Baptist churches; but our organic foundations were 
 restored in 161 1 and 1633 in England when the Anabaptist 
 elements separated from the Puritans arid organized churches of 
 their own persuasion according to the model of the New Testa- 
 ment — based upon a regenerate membership and baptized upon 
 a profession of repentance towards God and faith in our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 That there may have been a Dutch Anabaptist element in this 
 foundation is possible. It is also possible that, in this founda- 
 tion, there was a Lollard element. Baptist churches after 1641 
 sprung up most spontaneously and rapidly in sections where 
 formerly these elements had existed in the eastern counties of 
 England; and it is evident that in London and the sections in- 
 dicated there was Anabaptist seed in the soil. If so, we have a 
 spiritual vein of succession blood which connects us back with 
 the old English and Continental Anabaptists who can trace an 
 evangelical succession back to primitive times. Of any organic 
 or baptismal succession we have no historical proof ; and John 
 Smyth and all the Baptist writers of the 17th century utterly 
 deny any such a connection, especially as to the English. It 
 would be a matter of denominational interest and history to be 
 able to trace such a connection; but we are only historically cer- 
 tain of our Puritan origin, that as a denomination we organically 
 sprang from the old English Anabaptists of 1611-1633, and that 
 we became strictly Baptistic by immersion in 1641. We were 
 essentially though not strictly Baptists before that ; .and it is with 
 genuine pride and pleasure that we can point back to our heroic 
 ancestry, however regretful for their many errors. 
 
 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision — baptism nor un- 
 baptism — essentially makes a Baptist. First of all, a regenerate 
 heart is essential to a Baptist ; and immersion cannot make a 
 Baptist without previous regeneration. Our chief doctrinal 
 peculiarity through all the ages is the spiritual as opposed to the 
 
Were They Baptists? 
 
 257 
 
 ritualistic or rationalistic idea of Christianity : and our chief 
 ceremonial peculiarity through all the ages has been believ- 
 ers' as opposed to infant baptism. If our people have ever 
 failed in the baptismal form which more perfectly symbolizes 
 the spiritual idea of Christianity, they have never failed in 
 the essence of Christ's religion; and though they may have 
 sometimes erred in the form they never erred in the prin- 
 ciple or purpose of that form as a believers' rite. More than 
 this, whatever their variation in the practice of that form, as a 
 matter of expediency or sufficiency, they never denied its sym- 
 bolism, and promptly returned to it when light and liberty 
 changed their environment and afforded the opportunity. The 
 greatest error on baptism that any Anabaptist can be charged 
 with in history is that immersion was not the exclusive form of 
 baptism; and the Polish Anabaptists (1574), the Collegiants (1620) 
 and the English Anabaptists (1641) repudiated this error, and 
 returned to the "ancient practice" of immersion as exclusive and 
 essential to baptism. They thoroughly believed that immersion 
 was a Scriptural form of baptism, and never lost sight of its 
 burial and resurrection significance in their "washing with 
 water" by the application of the element to the subject instead 
 of the subject to the element ; but their definition of baptism 
 never implied or included sprinkling or pouring except as an 
 alternate form which might be used as a matter of expediency 
 or sufficiency. Hence in their zeal for the principle of believers' 
 baptism they fell under the 16th century spell of indifferency as 
 to mode — a spell from which the Pedobaptist world has never 
 awoke, though once immersionists. 
 
 One of the great distinguishing landmarks of these English 
 Baptists of 1611-1641 was their anti-succession theory of the 
 visible church, ministry and ordinances. They claimed a suc- 
 cession of faith and of God's Spirit and Word; and that when 
 God so revealed his truth and moved true believers to obedience, 
 it was their duty and right to "restore Gospel order." Blunt, 
 1640-41, made a departure from this theory, seeking regular 
 baptism from Holland; but the great body of Baptists, both 
 General and Particular, repudiated Blunt's "method" as "need- 
 less" and "Popish" — as a "succession" movement to restore im- 
 mersion — and maintained that though baptism was lost, "an un- 
 baptized person might warrantably baptize and so begin a 
 reformation." This was the doctrine set up in principle by 
 
 17 
 
258 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 John Smyth, Helwys, Morton and their followers, 1609-11, and 
 this was specially the theory, both in principle and practice, of 
 Spilsbury, Barber, Kilcop, and all the rest of the Baptists, Gen- 
 eral and Particular, with the exception of Blunt, 1640-41 
 and onward. Blunt's succession idea, if he entertained it, 
 was purely Pedobaptist and utterly repudiated by every 
 other Baptist of the Seventeenth century so far as I have seen ; 
 and as we have seen, the Blunt church, with the Blunt idea, 
 probably became extinct before 1646, according to Edwards and 
 Bampfield. Organic, ministerial or baptismal succession is not 
 a landmark of the Baptists of the 17th century. Even if we 
 could trace our baptism to Blunt who received immersion from 
 the Collegiants, who may have received it from the Socinian 
 Anabaptists of Poland, who may have received it from the Swiss 
 Anabaptists, yet our foundation is insecure; for evidently the 
 Continental Anabaptists of the 16th century, whether they 
 sprinkled or immersed, originated their baptism by an unbap- 
 tized administrator, to begin with, as shown by their history. 
 Our American succession, however, is from the English Ana- 
 baptists, or from Roger Williams, or both; and with but the 
 Blunt exception, the English Anabaptists originated immersion 
 by unbaptized administrators. The visible succession theory 
 never originated among Baptists until about February, 1848, 
 when it sprung up among our Southern (American) Baptists in 
 opposition to the practice of receiving Pedobaptist immersions. 
 Organic, ministerial or baptismal succession is purely a tra- 
 ditional fiction of recent origin, and the very opposite of original 
 Baptist Landmarkism. The very first regular Baptist Confession 
 of Faith, 1644, is an anti-succession document; and it presup- 
 poses by its very terms the restoration of immersion among the 
 English Baptists by unbaptized administrators. 
 
 The great fundamental peculiarity of the Anabaptists of 161 1- 
 41 was that the Bible is the sole rule of faith and practice among 
 Christians. This is one of the Baptist landmarks of every age ; 
 and it was upon the authority of God's Word that the English 
 Baptists based their commission to restore gospel order — erect 
 anew the church, the ministry and baptism as lost under the de- 
 fection of Antichrist. They regarded "the church in the wilder- 
 ness" as not a visible, but only a spiritual body — that the 1260 
 years of Antichristian reign reached down to their day — that the 
 prior Anabaptist sects which successively rose and perished 
 
Were They Baptists? 259 
 
 never brought the woman out of the wilderness — that God had 
 peculiarly discovered to them, by his Spirit and Word, the duty 
 of restoring Gospel order lost in the apostasy down to their day 
 — and they invariably held that visible succession had been re- 
 peatedly broken. So far as I can discover, no English Baptist of 
 the 17th century interpreted Matt. 16:18, to mean an unbroken 
 continuance of visible churches, but such a succession as would 
 imply a continual reproduction of such churches, under a per- 
 petual succession of believers and of God's Spirit and Word. All 
 of the English Baptists followed by the able and orthodox Gill in- 
 terpreted Matt. 16:18 as simply referring to the spiritual body of 
 Christ ; and I now agree with those who took the position that 
 the gates of hell should never so destroy Christ's visible churches 
 that they should not be continually restored. Reproduction was 
 the theory of the old English Baptists who never denied the facts 
 of history as to a "broken succession" of visible churches, as 
 they called it, and who never based their position upon the brit- 
 tle thread of a sacramental or outward succession. They held to 
 the strong and vigorous theory that the gates of hell might 
 destroy the outward, but he could not touch the inward — that 
 though you sweep every organism, and office and ordinance from 
 the earth to-day, God's Spirit and Word through his believing 
 people would reproduce them to-morrow. They regarded visible 
 succession as the "mark" or "Character of the Beast." 
 
 It is certain that the Apostolic churches and those that suc- 
 ceeded them were lost in the Apostasy; and so of all the 
 successive separatist sects of Anabaptists until the permanent 
 restoration of Gospel order by the English Anabaptists, 161 1- 
 41. Like the typical people of God under the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion, Baptists in person and principle have substantially continued 
 from John the Baptist till now ; and as the Jew lost circumcision 
 in the wilderness, the ark and the organism of the Temple service 
 in Canaan, and restored them, so Baptists have continued to lose 
 and restore their organism, ministry and baptism. The spiritual 
 kingdom has never been broken, however often Gospel order has 
 been interrupted or irregular; arid our visible succession has 
 been that of continual showers, but not that of a continuous flood. 
 The gates of hell have never for one moment prevailed against 
 God's Spirit, God's Word or God's People, whether in the typi- 
 cal or anti-typical wilderness; and although Satan has at various 
 times made havoc of the external body of Christ, it has always 
 
260 English Baptist Reformation. 
 
 succeeded again by reproduction or resurrection. The devil 
 killed Christ on the cross, in the body, but not in the spirit; and 
 as his body rose from the dead, so his visible churches, or bodies, 
 have risen from the dead a hundred times. The present Baptist 
 denomination would not be here, to-day, if Antichrist had not 
 lost his power to destroy us in the English nation, as he did on 
 the Continent ; and if he had done with us in England what he 
 did with the Anabaptists of Germany and Switzerland, there 
 would have been the necessity for another reproduction in order 
 to continue Baptist organism, office and ordinance. God alone 
 restores and preserves Baptists ; and this was the constant con- 
 fession of the English Baptists of the 17th century. His Spirit 
 alone is our Guide and the Bible alone our authority; and upon 
 this platform we stand for doctrine and practice — for church con- 
 stitution, ministerial function and ceremonial form and order. 
 There is no church authority apart from Scriptural warrant ; and 
 our baptism, communion and ordination are regular only in a 
 Scriptural church and at the hands of a Scriptural ministry, 
 wherever set up, without regard to visible succession. The Ana- 
 baptists of the 17th century took the position that when the 
 church, its ministry and its ordinances were once restored, then 
 regularity should be resumed in any given community — that 
 when the necessity for restoration ceased, then irregularity should 
 cease — and I agree with those orthodox Baptists who took that 
 position. Hence I am a close-baptism, close-communion and 
 close-ordination Baptist — just as Kiffin and those like him were. 
 The Popish fiction of organic or visible succession founded 
 on Matt. 16:18, as already said, was never adopted by Baptists 
 until of recent date; and it has not only engendered a false 
 Baptist ideal and spirit, but it has from the beginning been a 
 source of strife and confusion among good brethren. No body 
 of Baptists in the world, among themselves, has been more un- 
 happy than where this fiction has prevailed, or since this notion 
 began to be pursued among them. We have had more or less of 
 strife for fifty years, based largely upon this difference of opinion 
 among Southern Baptists; and there appears to be little prospect 
 of peace until this Romish novelty shall be surrendered. I can 
 remember, when affected by this ideal and spirit of high-church 
 Baptistism, I was led to believe that such men as Fuller, 
 Broadus, Boyce, Jeter and others were not sound Baptists; and 
 for some years this fiction led me to feel that it was almost im- 
 
Were They Baptists? 261 
 
 possible for a Pedobaptist to be saved. The object of this 
 volume is not only to sustain a historical fact, but to set up the 
 old Baptist landmark of constant reproduction instead of visible 
 succession; and if I can help to unite my brethren upon the 
 Bible as the sole rule of authority, and the only basis of our 
 continuance — under God — I shall think myself happy. In the 
 fear of God, and in the light of Scripture and history, I dedi- 
 cate this work to the peace and prosperity of the Baptist denomi- 
 nation; and I affirm my solemn belief that God never intended 
 that his people should have a visible or organic succession, the 
 claim of which has always engendered a traditional pride and 
 persecuting spirit in those who have held it. 
 
 The charge will be made that the position of the English 
 Baptists as Separatists and Reformers makes them the offspring 
 of Rome — a daughter of the "Mother of Harlots." Such is not 
 the case. In every age God has cried: "Come out of her my 
 people"; and in every age they have come out and from under 
 the shadow of the great Apostasy by separation or reformation. 
 Every Anabaptist leader and sect of history was Separatist or 
 Reformer; but they threw off the "mark of the beast," infant 
 baptism, and other Romish heresies, and hence were never 
 daughters of the old harlot of Rome. No Pedobaptist reforma- 
 tion or separation ever got out of Rome. The retention of in- 
 fant baptism is "the mark of the beast," and so of other Romish 
 heresies which make every Pedobaptist denomination in some 
 respect akin to Rome and like their mother or grandmother. 
 Anabaptist .separation or reformation generally went to the other 
 extreme of Romanism; and hence their counter errors which, 
 in many instances, helped to divide and destroy them. The 
 only likeness which any Baptist has to Rome, is holding to visible 
 succession, "Antichrist's chief hold." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 (A) 
 
 THE CRITIC ON DOCUMENT "NUMBER 4." 
 
 CAPTION. 
 
 "An Account of divers Conferances held in ye Congregation 
 of wch Mr. Henry Jessey was Pastor, about Infant baptism by 
 wch Mr. H. Jessey & ye greatest part of that Congregation ware 
 proselyted to ye opinion and Practice of ye Antipedobaptists. 
 
 being an old M.S.S. wch I received of Mr. Adams, supposed 
 to be written by Mr. Jessey, or transcribed from his Journal." 
 
 " 1 643 ABOUT BAPTISME. QU : ANS : 
 
 "Hanserd Knollys our Brother not being satisfied for Baptizing his 
 child, after it had been endeavored by ye elder & and by one or two more: 
 him self referred to ye Church then that they might satisfye him, or he 
 rectifye them if amiss herein which was well accepted. 
 
 "Hence meetings ware appointed for conference about it at B Ja : & B. 
 K & B. G. & each was performed with prayer & in much love as Christian 
 meetings (because he could not submit his judgment to depend on with its 
 power — So yelded to) 
 
 "Elder The maine argument was from these fower conclusions 
 
 "I. Those in Gospel Institutions are so set down to us. — those not 
 cleare 
 
 "2. Whatever Priviledg God hath given to his Church as a Church is 
 still given to all Churches. 
 
 "3. God hath once given to his Church as a Church this privilege to 
 have their Children in Gospel covenant, & to have its token in Infancy 
 Gen. 17.7. 10. 
 
 "4. Baptism seems to be in ye rome of Circumcision. 
 
 "Conclusion: to be now to Churches Infants. 
 
 "H. K. Ans: 
 
 "To ye third on wch ye weight lyes, that it wants ground and proof 
 from Scripture. That Gen. 17 proves it no more to be given to a Church 
 as a Church, for their Infants to have this token of Covenant in Infancy, 
 than for the Churches Servants all bought with money &c without excep- 
 tion of Religion to be Baptized: and yt not only ye Chil: but Childrens 
 Children to many Generations though neither Father nor Grandfather 
 were faithful must be Members ; for thus it was with Abraham's posterity: 
 therefore this was not with it as a Church, but as Jewish or as peculiar to 
 
 262 
 
Appendix. 263 
 
 Abrahams seed Naturall. Unless we may say of the Children of such 
 wretches that certainly the Lord is their God and they his people, con- 
 trary to 1 Cor. 7.14. 
 
 "Elder. 
 
 "Ma: All such as we ought to judg to be in Gods covenant under 
 promises should have ye token of ye Covenant 
 
 "Mi : Thus of ye Infants of Believers especially Church members. 
 
 "Ans. [B. K. Argumt] 
 
 "To ye first proposition or major its not ye Covenant yt interests to ye 
 token of itselfe, but God's Insitution, proved thus 
 
 "I. The Lord's Supper is a token of the New Covenant, it must be to 
 such children as being in Covenant, if Argument good 
 
 "2. Enoch, Methusala, Noah, Sem : ware in Covenant & to be judges 
 so & Abraham at 75 years old & Isaac at two days old : these then must 
 have circumcision if major be sound, but not so besides being in Covenant 
 there must be a word on Institution touching the time & adjuncts &c. 
 
 "In Gospell times wherein all these are New there are now subjects, 
 Gentiles : a new way of taking them in ; new Ordinances, new time to 
 them ; as ye Lord's Supper so Bapt : As we must not goe to Moses for ye 
 Lord's Supper, its time, Persons to partake &c but to New Testament so 
 we must for Baptism. Now in New Testament is no Institution of Infant 
 baptism. 
 
 "The being ye seed of Abraham would not qualify them for Baptism 
 Matt: 3. This is the substance of what was discussed in all Love for 
 many weeks togeather. 
 
 "Issue hereof was the conviction of Bro. Jac : & S. K. B. S. now 
 against Pedobap : & ye stagering of more, whereof some searched ye 
 Scriptures, some prayed earnestly for light, & had such impression on their 
 Spirits against Pedobaptisme, as they told ye Elder on his enquiry, that he 
 could not but judge there was much of God in it, yet still he then re- 
 maind in his judgment for it: though thus 16 ware in a weeks space 
 against it, wth little or no speach each with other. This was about the 
 17th of Mo 1643-4. Having had weekly loveing conferance with prayer 
 from ye midst of 1 1 Mo 1644. 1644.2,28. Concluded that to our friends 
 yt then live in ye county (about 12) a letter should be writt from Church 
 to each with tender care, exhortation & consolation. 
 
 "1644. ist&2 Mo. Haveing sought the Lord with fasting for those 
 friends that left us, as not satisfied we ware baptized as a true Church & 
 for our And haveing by conference not satisfyed you. 
 
 "1644. 3.29. At Mr Fountains ye Church considered not further to do, 
 some judged yt ye Church censure should pass, others not. 
 
 "Conclusion was to desire ye advice of ye Elders & Brethren of other 
 Churches, wch was done 1644.3.27: at Mr Shambrookes where ware 
 present these 
 
 "Mr Barebone, Rozer, Dr Parker, Mr Erburg, Mr Cooke, Mr Thomas 
 Goodwin, Mr Philip Nye, Mr G. Sympson, Mr Burrows, Mr Straismere. 
 
 "These by enquiry not satisfyed that in these absenters was obstinacy 
 but tender conscience & holyness & not disturbing in our proceeds ad- 
 vised us 
 
264 Appendix. 
 
 "1. Not to Excommunicate, no, nor admonish wch is only obstinate. 
 
 "2. To count them still our Church & pray & love them. 
 
 "3. Desire conversing togeather so farr as their principles permit them, 
 so waiting till either (1) some come in, or (2) some grow giddy & scan- 
 dulous then proceed against them, to this we agrees and so parted. 
 
 "The names of some of our Dearly beloved Friends yt scrupled about 
 ye Administration of Baptisme &c and in tenderness forbore ware these 
 
 B) S. Knollys 
 
 )Jackson S. Keneston 
 
 S) B. Hen. Jones 
 
 B) S. Pickford 
 
 )Nowell S. Dorrell 
 
 S) Eliza Phillips 
 
 S. Bayh S. Reves 
 
 B. Berry B. Wade 
 
 B. W. Hulls 
 
 S. Phillis Atkinson 
 
 and afterwards these 
 
 S. Eliza Alport S. Wade 
 
 S. Eliza Michael 
 
 S. Lydia Strachen 
 
 S. Kath Pordage "After some time all these in ye 
 
 vS. Cotheldy 2nd Row were satisfyed vide in 
 
 S. Agnes Nadinam their scruple and judged supra yt 
 
 B) such disciples as are gifted to 
 
 )Golding teach & evangelise may also 
 
 S ) baptize &c &c and ware bap- 
 
 S. Kent (yt dyed) tized 
 
 Some before H. Jessey and the rest of ye church ware convinced against 
 Pedobaptism. And hence desired to enjoy it where they might, &Joyned 
 also, some with Bro. Knollys, some with Bro Kiffin, thus These 
 
 B. S. Knollys B. Ford 
 
 B. S. Wade B. Potshall 
 
 B. Couver S. Dormer 
 
 S. Jane Todderoy S. Pickford 
 
 S. Eliza Phillips S. Reves 
 
 B. Darel 
 B. Blunt 
 
 "After H. Jessey was convinced also, the next morning early after that 
 wch had been a day of Solemne seeking ye Lord in fasting & prayer (That 
 Infant Baptism were unlawfull & if we should be further bap-tized &c, the" 
 Lord would not hide it from us, but cause us to know it) First H Jessey 
 was convinced against Pedobaptisme & then that himself should be bap- 
 tized (notwithstanding many conferences wth his honored Beloved 
 Brethren Mr Nye, 'Mr Tho: Goodwin, Mr Burroughs, Mr Greenhill, Mr 
 Cradock, Mr Carter &c &c. with Mr Jackson, Mr Bolton &c). 1645 4 Mo 
 Vul June 29. And was baptized by Mr Knollys, and then by degrees he 
 baptized many of ye Church, when convinced they desired it. 
 
Appendix. 265 
 
 "Then in time some of those before named returned to communion 
 wth this Church as 
 
 S. Kenaston B & S. Wade 
 
 B. Hen. Jones S. Dorrell 
 
 S. Buckley *S. Huddel als. Levill" 
 
 The hysteric effort of the critic to twist the Jessey Church Records into 
 making Blunt a Baptist in 1644 and into fixing his deputation to Holland 
 in the same year, is based upon a perversion of this document, No. 4, and 
 upon the blunders of Neal. Crosby, who lent these MSS. to Neal, and who 
 uses this document freely, makes no such reference to 1644; and he 
 charges Neal with misrepresenting these Records in other respects, for in- 
 stance, when he represents Jessey's church as becoming Baptist in 1638 
 instead of 1645 and laying the "foundation for the first Baptist congrega- 
 tion" in England, that is, in 1638. The "Blunt" mentioned in this docu- 
 ment, No. 4, cannot be shown to be Richard Blunt of document No. 2 
 (1640-41). Perhaps, according to the Court Records, it would prove a 
 "forgery ; " and instead of "B.[rother] Blunt" it was S.[ister] Blunt ! ! 
 
 But grant for the sake of argument that it was Richard Blunt. It would 
 only prove, as Barebone charged upon "R. B.,"-that, as many Baptists in 
 that day did, he would receive a "fourth baptism;" and it would possibly 
 identify R. B. with Richard Blunt as Barebone's antagonist, 1642-43. 
 (See pages 178, 179.) Edwards, 1646, says that the church of one 
 "Blount" (as Crosby spells Richard's name) had already gone to pieces. 
 The regular or succession theory of Blunt's baptism had been repudiated 
 from the start by the great body of the English Baptists. Even Kilcop, 
 baptized by Blunt or Blacklockin 1641, held to the anti-succession theory ; 
 and so of Kiffin, who became a Baptist in 1641 and who was possibly 
 baptized by Blunt or Blacklockin that year. Now whether the "Blount" 
 mentioned by Edwards was Richard Blunt, or not — whether or not Blunt 
 and his people were absorbed, in 1641, by Spilsbury — or whether or not he 
 himself remained, as Kiffin and Knollys did, with Jessey — he likely at an 
 early date abandoned his succession theory of baptism and fell in, as 
 Kiffin, Kilcop and all the rest, with the great anti-succession party ; and 
 it would not be surprising to find him, in 1644, receiving a "fourth bap- 
 tism," as intimated by Barebone of R. B. It was not only common with 
 some of the Anabaptists at the time, but, as in Kent, the General Bap- 
 tists sometimes reimmersed the Particular Baptists. In the controversy 
 with Barebone R. B. was a strong anti-successionist, 1642-43 ; and if R. 
 B. was Richard Blunt it would not be strange if by a "fourth baptism," 
 he was reimmersed in 1644. 
 
 It will be observed, too, under the date of 1644, that after the with- 
 drawal of sixteen members from Jessey, document No. 4 says: "After 
 sometime all these in ye 2nd Row were satisfied (vide in their scruple and 
 judged supra) yt such disciples as are gifted to teach & evangelize may 
 also baptize &c &c, and ware baptized, Some before H. Jessey and the 
 rest of ye Church ware convinced against Pedobaptisme." The document 
 speaks of the first list of withdrawals as those who "scrupled about ye 
 
 *B. & S. in the above lists stand for Brother & Sister. 
 
266 Appendix. 
 
 Administration of Baptisme &c;" and the document refers to those "in 
 ye 2nd Row" as some of those who thus "scrupled" about the administra- 
 tion of baptism by unbaptized administrators as being "satisfied." If "ye 
 2nd Row" belongs to the last list "Blunt" is found in it; and this would 
 indicate, if it was Richard, his conversion already to the anti-succession 
 theory, and that he had gone with Knollys or Kiffin, both of whom were 
 members of Jessey's Church and had left it — Kiffin in 1643 and Knollys 
 in 1644 as this document shows in the last list as to "B. S. [Brother and 
 Sister] Knollys." 
 
 The criticism, under this head, that Jessey was not convinced that im- 
 mersion was the mode of baptism until 1645, is simply desperate. As 
 already shown, in Ch. VIII., p. 103, according to the Kiffin MS., Blunt 
 was "convinced" with Jessey, 1640, that baptism "ought to be by dip- 
 ping" — and further convinced, in 1641, when, as Crosby shows, a "much 
 greater number" seceded from the Jessey Church to the Baptists. Crosby 
 (Vol. I., pp. 310, 311) affirms that Jessey's respect for the piety and solid 
 judgment of many of these seceders — the "frequent debates" in his church 
 on the subject and by a "diligent and impartial examination" of the 
 "Scriptures and antiquity" — led him to the "conviction" that the "mode 
 of baptizing" was immersion; and in the year 1642 he N announced his 
 conviction publicly in his church and declared that, "for the future," 
 those who were baptized would be immersed — henceforth "dipping" the 
 children until convinced that infant baptism was unscriptural. Crosby 
 cites the controversy of 1644, as he found it in document No. 4, which 
 finally led Jessey and the greater part of his church to renounce infant 
 baptism; and when "convinced also the next morning early after a day of 
 solemn seeking, fasting and prayer," that that practice was wrong and 
 that he himself ought to be dipped, he was baptized, June 29, 1645, by 
 Hanserd Knollys, who with his wife and others withdrew from the Jessey 
 Church in 1644 an( i were immersed at the same time "B[rother] Blunt" did 
 likewise. The controversy which primarily led to this step began in 1643 
 (Document No. 4) when the question of baptizing Knollys' child became 
 an issue ; and all this proves that Knollys and his wife were members of 
 Jessey's Pedobaptist Church until early in 1644, when, as the result of 
 the controversy over their own child, both withdrew and were immersed — 
 more than twelve months before Jessey and his church became Baptists. 
 In the early part of 1643 Kiffin, evidently, had withdrawn from Jessey 
 and had become co-pastor of some church with Patient ; but it was not 
 until 1645 that Knollys had gathered a church and was pastor in London. 
 Perhaps he immediately began this work in 1644 when with his wife and 
 those who followed him he withdrew from Jessey's church. Though Kiffin 
 became a Baptist and was perhaps immersed in 1641, Knollys delayed 
 until 1644 to follow his conviction ; and so far as documentary evidence 
 shows, it is certain that neither of them were immersed before the year 
 1 641. 
 
Appendix. 267 
 
 (B) 
 THE CRITIC ON "THE 1641 THEORY." 
 
 The oft-repeated charge that the ''copyist" or the "collector" of the 
 Jessey Church Records forged into the Kiffin MS. the clause: <■ '■none hav- 
 ing then so practiced it in England to professed believers" and that Crosby 
 knew of no such clause in the manuscript he had, is so grossly absurd that 
 it scarcely needs to be noticed. As repeatedly shown Crosby para- 
 phrases and strengthens the clause in unmistakable terms when he says 
 of the "dissenters" whom, on page 97, Vol. I., he calls "English Bap- 
 tists : " "That they could not be satisfied about any administrator in Eng- 
 land to BEGIN this practice; because tho' some [Anabaptists] in this 
 nation rejected the baptism of infants, yet they had not, as they knew of, 
 REVIVED the ancient custom of immersion," which he had just said, 
 (p. 97) "had for sometime been disused.'''' This is Crosby's version and 
 amplification of the clause in question ; and he makes it clearer still, in 
 the very terms of the MS., when he proceeds to detail the action of the 
 "Baptists" in sending "Blount" to Holland for the "disused" ordinance. 
 Why? Because there was no one "known," or to be "found," among the 
 Anabaptists of England who had contimied the practice? No, who had 
 "revived" the "disused' 1 custom; and the wildest vagary, in the light of 
 history, is the desperate assumption that Blunt's deputation to Holland 
 grew out of the "rumor" that Spilsbury had once gone to Smyth at Am- 
 sterdam for the same purpose ! The very converse must have been the 
 fact ; for Spilsbury must have been a boy when Smyth died, and could 
 have had no reason for going to Smyth. Blunt had a reason for going to 
 Holland, and Crosby makes that plain also : because there they "had used 
 immersion for sometime," as in England they had "disused" it "for some- 
 time." But for theCollegiants who restored immersion in Holland, 1620, 
 there had been no immersionists, at that time, in Holland, as in England,, 
 to whom Blunt could have been sent; and when Smyth was in Amsterdam 
 and Spilsbury a boy, there were no Baptists in England, at all, of whom 
 history gives any account — at least, so far as immersion makes Baptists. 
 The Spilsbury "rumor" grew out of the Blunt deputation. There could 
 have been no such rumor concerning Spilsbury before 1640--41, since 
 Smyth died in 1612; and the Spilsbury rumor is a confirmation of the 
 Blunt deputation. 
 
 The frantic effort to "explode" the "1641 theory" by trying to falsify 
 the "Gould-Kiffin MS.," as distinct from the "Crosby-Kiffin MS., "is pain- 
 fully pitiful. Never was there such an ado without doing anything in 
 microscopic criticism. Not only is it claimed that Crosby does not men- 
 tion "the famous ten words," but that he does not quote the date, "1641:" 
 therefore the "Crosby-Kiffin MS." did not have that date, nor those ten 
 words. I have shown that he paraphrased or amplified these ten words 
 into a stronger statement than the words themselves ; and I have shown 
 that he not only quotes literally from the 1640 paragraph of the "Gould- 
 Kiffin MS.," including the date, but he minutely details all the facts con- 
 tained in both the 1640 and 1641 paragraphs of this MS. which follow the 
 1640 date and identify the 1641 date. It is absolutely certain that the 
 
268 Appendix. 
 
 ''Gould-Kiffin MS.," or its original, was before Crosby; and "a wayfaring 
 man, though a fool," need not err in the fact. 
 
 But suppose that the date, 1641, could not be distinctively established, 
 or that Crosby did not find it in the Kiffin MS. He affirms that immer- 
 sion ceased in England in 1600; that it "had been for some time dis- 
 used;^ that the "English Baptists" restored it. When? It was either at 
 or after their organization, 1 609-1 633 ; but according to Crosby's author- 
 ities, Hutchinson and the Kiffin MS., it was after 1633-38; and according 
 to added authorities, such as Spilsbury, Tombes, Lawrence and others, the 
 revival of immersion took place by two distinct methods, the "former 1 '' be- 
 ing the Blunt, and "last" being the Spilsbury, method. Blunt evidently 
 went to Holland for the "former" method after 1633-38 ; and there is no 
 way to escape the 1640-41 theory without overthrowing Crosby — albeit he 
 does not mention 1641. The "English Baptists," according to Crosby, 
 revived immersion in the 17th century, about 1640-41 ; and if we could 
 fix no particular date at all between 161 1 and 1641, the fact of revivals 
 the same. All the writers of the 17th century, Baptist and Pedobaptist, 
 either expressly or impliedly, declare this fact; and followed by Crosby 
 they revolve around the date 1640-41, whether that date is mentioned or 
 not. These writers demonstrate that the "English Baptists," as Crosby 
 maintains, were Separatists — that they had a "beginning" of their own in 
 England — that they wrought a "reformation upon the same principles on 
 which all other Protestants built their reformation" — all in the 17th cen- 
 tury. This is the history of the case ; and nothing would be gained if the 
 .1641 theory was exploded into atoms. The critics of Dr. Whitsitt's thesis 
 have gone crazy about "1641." That date is no doubt the true one; but 
 that date is the most insignificant consideration in the contention. The 
 great question is: Did the Anglo-Saxon Baptists originate in the 17th 
 century upon the principle of believers' baptism and independency — did 
 they have a "beginning" as Separatists — did they introduce a "reforma- 
 tion" of their own — did they afterwards restore immersion and so com- 
 plete their reformation? Crosby and the 17th century writers, as cited in 
 this work, say they did ; and the date at which they revived immersion is 
 a small matter. The only way to get rid of the facts in the case is to ex- 
 plode Crosby ; and in exploding him, the critics will have to explode fifty 
 or sixty witnesses who sustain Crosby. 
 
 (C) 
 
 THE CRITIC ON THE FONT. 
 
 The critic cites Wall (Hist. Inft. Bapt., Vol. II., p. 403) as follows : 
 "And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems that it was at 1645 just then 
 beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly 
 times of 1641." Wall is here referring to the change from pouring to 
 sprinkling in the English Church, in 1645, on the part of a "very few," 
 and which was resisted by such men as Thomas Blake, who favored and 
 practiced pouring, and who said (Infants Baptism freed from Anti- 
 christianism, 1645, p. 4): "I have seen several dipped; I never saw nor 
 heard of any sprinkled." Blake uses the word "rhantize" (which the 
 
Appendix. 269 
 
 Baptists had used to antithesize immersion) to antithesize pouring ; and 
 Dr. Jesse B. Thomas (Both Sides, p. 31) says of the Pedobaptist use of 
 the word: "It points rather to the rancorous opposition of the conserva- 
 tives who reluctantly yielded to the force of public opinion so far as to 
 accept pouring, but resented the further change of sprinkling, then [1645] 
 just being introduced" Affusion — a "washing" or rubbing "with water" — 
 was and had been the practice of the Pedobaptists reaching back into the 
 16th century ; and although affusion went by the general name of 
 "sprinkling," it was not till about 1645 that the English Church began to 
 practice what Wall says was "properly called" sprinkling — and then only 
 by a "very few." The Jacob church is represented by the tract, "To 
 Sions Virgins," as sprinkling from its organization; and it is likely the 
 Independents generally practiced sprinkling instead of pouring — and so 
 perhaps of the Presbyterians. From the time of Wycliffe and Tyndale 
 pouring had begun in the English Church ; and the Catechism of Noel, 
 1570, of sole authority then in the English Church, prescribed "sprin- 
 kling" as alternate with immersion. In spite of Queen Elizabeth's efforts 
 to resist the Calvinistic innovation, she was not able to withstand the affu- 
 sion movement; and Wall says (Hist. Inft. Bapt., Vol. II., p. 401) : "In 
 the latter times of Queen Elizabeth, and during the reigns of King James 
 and of King Charles I., very few children were dipped in the font." Affusion 
 was the mode and "sprinkling, properly called," as Wall puts it, never be- 
 gan to be practiced by the English Church until about 1645, an d then by 
 "very few." 
 
 It is needless to follow the critic from Gough to, Balfour against his 
 chief authority, Dr. Wall. The "Stone Font," urged by the Bishops 
 against the "profane bason," did not imply dipping between i6co and 
 1645 ; for in the use of the same terms they forbid baptizing in basons, 
 which was by pouring, just as they require baptism IN fonts, which was 
 in the same form. The Prayer Book of James I., 1604, meant no more as to 
 dipping then than it means now, and with but little exception the English 
 Church practiced then, just as it does now. The discovery of fonts and 
 baptisteries sufficient to dip babies or adults in proves nothing for the 
 practice of baptism from 1600 to 1641. We find them all over Europe as 
 employed in earlier times for immersion ; and there is a baptistery in a 
 Nashville Episcopal Church for the use of any one who desires to be 
 dipped in a sprinkling church. 
 
 Other witnesses employed by the critic are, like Wall, not touching the 
 question as he supposes. Sir John Floyer, already quoted in Ch. V., 
 positively declares that immersion, with a few exceptions, had ceased in 
 the English Church from 1600 A. D. onward; and like Rogers, Downame 
 and others, he was pleading for its restoration. Watts, in 1656, a learned 
 Episcopalian, does not hesitate to say, at his time, that the "memory of 
 man" did not run back to the period when the English Church was not in 
 "firm possession" of sprinkling or affusion as against immersion. Such 
 Baptist writers as Henry Denne and Thomas Crosby thoroughly agree 
 with Sir John Floyer that immersion in England ended with the year 1600. 
 
 So far as adult immersion is concerned, as far as I have read, all the 
 Baptist writers from 1641 to 1700 are against the critic at the font. In 
 1645 the learned Dr. Tombes defends the right to restore immersion by 
 
270 Appendix. 
 
 unbaptized administrators upon the sole ground that the ordinance had 
 been "universally corrupted," and that the "continuance of adult bap- 
 tism could not be proved." Cornwell, 1645, assumes that the Baptists 
 had resumed "dipping." R. B. in 1642 declares that "until lately there 
 were no baptized people." So expressly or impliedly of over fifty witnesses, 
 Baptist and Pedobaptist, who wrote in the 17th century. Of what conse- 
 quence then is it that Thomas Blake, 1645, na( l seen many (he says 
 "several") infants dipped as exceptions to the rule of the English Church ? 
 Of course, Daniel Featley, like some Episcopalians now, might truly say: 
 "Our font is always open " — that is, if anybody wants immersion. William 
 Walker, 1678, truly said: "The general custom now in England is to 
 sprinkle;" but in the light of Wall, Floyer, Denne, Watts, Crosby and 
 others, I deny his other proposition : "So in the fore end of this centurie 
 the general custom was to dip." Balfour (1827) says : "Baptizing infants 
 by dipping them in fonts was practiced in the Church of England (except 
 in the cases of sickness or weakness) until the Directory came out in the 
 year 1644 ;" but he is only right as to the few exceptions which have been 
 admitted by Wall, Floyer, Crosby and others. Affusion was the general 
 mode of the English Church from 1600 to 1645, when, as Wall says, 
 "sprinkling, properly called," began to be practiced, and then only by a 
 * '■very few," 
 
 (D) 
 THE CRITIC'S PERVERSION OF KING. 
 
 He quotes the following sentence from King's "Way to Zion,&c.:" 
 ''"I. That God hath had a people on earth, ever since the coming of 
 Christ in the flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which he hath 
 owned as saints and as his people." The Critic then adds from King's 
 Third Part which: "Proveth that Outward Ordinances, and amongst them 
 Baptism, is to continue in the Church, &c." The Critic then adds his com- 
 ment: "I think some people would have spasms if some prominent Bap- 
 tist author were to put forth and prove the above propositions. But these 
 words of Daniel King did not disturb William Kiffin, and those other 
 Baptist preachers." He goes on then to quote further from King and 
 Kiffin (who endorsed King's book) to imply the idea that they taught a 
 visible succession of the church and its ordinances throughout all the ages. 
 If he read King's book, he is guilty of one of the grossest pieces of 
 garbling and suppression any writer ever perpetrated ; and if he did not 
 read his book, and only picked these sentences by scanning, then he is 
 guilty of the grossest ignorance. No stronger book was ever written in 
 the 17th century to prove that, while there had, in all ages, been a spirit- 
 ual succession of "saints," the visible succession of the church, its ministry 
 and ordinances, had been lost until restored by the Baptists; and while 
 he maintained, as against the Quakers and Seekers, that the ordinances 
 (including baptism) should upon principle continue in the church, he un- 
 equivocally declares the fact that they had not so continued until restored. 
 Now that they have been restored he (endorsed by Kiffin and others) 
 assumes against the Pedobaptists, Quakers and Seekers that the true 
 
Appendix. 271 
 
 church and ordinances are in the world, according to the New Testament 
 pattern; and they are defending their right to restore them and perpet- 
 uate them against the cavil and disturbance created by misrepresentation 
 and opposition. For a complete refutation of the Critic's gross perversion 
 of King, I refer the reader back to King's testimony on pages 187-191 
 of this volume, where he speaks for himself, and where he could have 
 spoken more at length if I had had the space. I also refer the reader to 
 my chapter on William Kiffin, pages 121-124, where he speaks as King 
 does — and also to pages 107, 108, Objections To The Kiffin Manuscript. 
 
 The critic in quoting King's first proposition failed, or took particular 
 pains not to quote his second which stands right under the first, as follows : 
 ' ' 2 . That these saints have the poiuer to reassume and take up as their right, any 
 Ordinance of Christ, which they have been deprived of by the violence and tyranny 
 of the man of sin." This is the point in controversy, and this is the point 
 on which King lays stress in order to show that the Baptists had not only 
 the right to restore baptism, under the Scriptures, but had restored it, and 
 had re-established the churches of Jesus Christ on earth. This point and 
 this part of King's discussion the critic suppressed, or else he overlooked 
 it with a criminal carelessness next to the crime of garbling ; and in either 
 case he is not reliable as authority upon the discussion under consideration 
 — especially so in seeking to make the false implication he does. 
 
 (E) 
 THE CRITIC AND THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMbLy. 
 
 It is not disputed that some of the "English divines between 1600 and 
 1641" — and long afterwards — opposed the ^innovation of sprinkling, de- 
 fended and sought to restore the lost rite of infant immersion in England. 
 This was true, as has been cited, of Daniel Rogers, George Downame, 
 Joseph Neede, Henry Greenwood, John Mayer, Stephen Denson, Edward 
 Elton, John Selden, Sir John Floyer, John Wesley and others; but the 
 great mass of the English Church and clergy, between 1600 and 1641, 
 were pouring for baptism, and only began to resent "sprinkling, properly 
 called" in 1645, when the Presbyterian innovation began to be adopted, 
 and then only by "a very few." As Wall says, however, very few in- 
 fants were dipped from the latter part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
 to the close of" the reign of Charles the First. Pouring was the English 
 Church fashion — improperly called "sprinkling." 
 
 If the Catholics of England were, according to Thomas Hall, like the 
 Baptists of 1652, "great dippers," it does not appear from the author 
 quoted. He only speaks of "some amongst us that have been dipped;" 
 and it is not denied, in 1652, that "some of the Catholics" and the "poore 
 Welsh" dipped their children — even in Winter. 
 
 It is well known that in the decision of the Westminster Assembly, 
 1643, immersion was excluded as an alternate form with sprinkling and 
 not as a substitute for sprinkling ; and it is also well known that the Pres- 
 byterians had introduced sprinkling in Scotland in 1539 and had con- 
 sistently practiced it, with but little exception, in England, down to the 
 date of the Westminster Assembly. It was also adopted by the Inde- 
 
272 Appendix. 
 
 pendents ; and it was this innovation which was vainly fought by Queen 
 Elizabeth and some of the Bishops in the latter part of the 16th century — 
 not simply as against immersion, but as against pouring, which was not 
 surrendered until about 1645 and then only by "a very few." Since the 
 time of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Noel, pouring had been introduced in 
 the English Church ; and, so far as the English Church was concerned, it 
 was pouring which supplanted immersion by 1600 A. D. — sprinkling, 
 "properly called," being the mode, in general, among the Presbyterfans 
 and Independents. 
 
 (F) 
 
 THE CRITIC ON IMMERSION IN ENGLAND 
 
 PRIOR TO 1641. 
 
 Under this head the critic's comment upon the 1644 Confession is char- 
 acterized by the usual exaggerated inferences and exclamation points, but 
 he says one true thing : "The makers of this Confession did not affirm the 
 doctrine of church or baptismal succession." They imply the contrary 
 for the reason that they had no such succession, as I have demonstrated in 
 this work beyond controversy. Among other things, however, the critic 
 affirms one thing wholly untrue : "None of the signers of this Confession 
 avow that immersion was lost." Besides the admissions of Kilcop and 
 Kiffin, Spilsbury positively shows that not only baptism was lost and that 
 the visible succession of the church had been repeatedly broken, but he 
 shows that the Baptists had recovered them — and how. See Ch. XII., pp. 
 144-151. But what of immersion before 1641 ? 
 
 1. The oft-repeated citation of Thomas Fuller (Ch. Hist, of Britain, 
 Vol. VII., p. 97) with regard to the expression: "Donatists new dipt," 
 applied, "for the main," to the Dutch Anabaptists, 1524, I have already 
 noticed in Ch. II., p. 23. Fuller wrote in 1656, just 132 years after this 
 Dutch immigration to England, and so far as I can find he cites no data 
 by which to show that they were dippers. He evidently followed tradi- 
 tion or took his idea from the custom of the Anabaptists of his day, 1656, 
 as the basis of his dipping phraseology ; or else, according to the usage 
 of his day, he employed the word "dipped" in the sense of christened, and so 
 alliteratively characterized the 1 524 Anabaptists as "Donatists new dipt" 
 under a new name. They were evidently of the Hoffmannite type and 
 their practice, at that date, was sprinkling. In 1653, Goodwin speaks of 
 the "first undipt dipper" who originated immersion among the Baptists 
 since "the late [Puritan] reformation." The Anabaptists of England, 
 before 1641, did not dip. The quotation from Reading (The Anabap- 
 tists Routed, 1655), which says: "Anabaptists not only deny believers' 
 children baptism, as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old, but affirm, 
 That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary, that with- 
 out it none are baptized," proves nothing except that the Anabaptists 
 of 1655 were practicing exclusive immersion, and that, like the Donatists 
 and Pelagians of old they denied "believers' children baptism." Read- 
 ing was one of the writers of the 17th century who charged Baptists with 
 "new" or self-originated baptism. See Ch. XIX., p. 233. 
 
Appendix. 273 
 
 2. The quotation from Turner (1 551) I have cited also in Ch. II., pp. 
 24-27. The controversy between Cooke and Turner regarding the prac- 
 tice of "baptysm" administered to the "Catechumeni" of the early church 
 on "Easter and Whit Sunday, " involved only the stibfect but not the mode 
 of baptism ; and Turner, an English Church immersionist, uses his own 
 language in reply when, insisting that the passive act of baptism, as con- 
 tradistinguished from the active form of the Lord's Supper, should not be 
 deferred with children, he says : "Childes may as well be dipped in the 
 water in the name of Christ even as olde folke." The mode was not in 
 question; and as for the word "Catabaptist" which Turner applies to the 
 Anabaptists, it cannot be shown, in the ecclesiastical use of the word, that 
 it ever means immersionist, but only a "prophaner" of baptism by "re- 
 iterating that ordinance." Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and 
 Byzantine period, gives as the ecclesiastical meaning of the word: "travesty 
 of 'baptism. " 
 
 3. The Critic cites John Man (1578), but there is nothing in the short 
 phrases of the fragmentary quotation to prove that the Anabaptists in 
 England dipped at all. Some of the Swiss and German Anabaptists had 
 dipped about 1525, and the Poland Anabaptists had resumed dipping in 
 1574. The tradition that the Anabaptists had generally dipped was com- 
 mon then as it is now ; but it cannot be historically shown that the Dutch 
 Anabaptists, then in England and becoming extinct, practiced dipping. 
 Whether of the early Hoffmannite, or later Mennonite, type, they practiced 
 sprinkling; and it is certain that the English Anabaptists from 1609 to 
 1641 did not immerse — as I have abundantly shown. 
 
 The citation from Man is the best the Critic has so far done; and yet 
 like all his citations, so few and far between, it is too indefinite as to whom 
 and where to prove Anabaptist immersion in England before 1641 — or 
 rather down to 1578 — against the testimonies of so much history which 
 know nothing of adult immersion in England from the earliest times to 
 1 641. The learned Baptist, Dr. Tombes (1652), as cited on page 152 of 
 this volume, shows that ti no cotitinuance of adult baptism \immersion\ can be 
 proved, ^ prior to 1 641, among Anabaptists. 
 
 (G) 
 THE CRITIC ON FOXE, FEATLEY AND OTHERS. 
 
 The critic cites us to a work of the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., 
 brought out by John Foxe about 1571, which refers to infant baptism as 
 immersion, the general though not universal custom of that time ; and 
 which also refers to the "cruel ungodliness of some," which (cruel un- 
 godliness) rushes headlong into baptism which they "without reason" 
 were ''unwilling to bestow upon infants." Not one word is here em- 
 ployed to signify the Anabaptist mode of baptism; and the charge of 
 "baptismal regeneration" in the passage does not refer to ihe Anabaptists 
 at all, but to "others,' 1 '' I suppose the extreme ritualists, who imagined 
 that the "Holy Spirit" emerged from the external element of baptism, 
 and that his "grace swam in the very font of baptism." Never was a 
 passage so misrepresented. The critic formerly quoted Fox's Book of 
 
 18 
 
274 Appendix. 
 
 Martyrs for a similar purpose and had to abandon his mistake ; and it 
 would have been infinitely better for him to have steered clear of Foxe 
 altogether. 
 
 The critic refers to Leonard Busher's definition of baptism as dipping 
 and to Prof. Masson's opinion that the practice of the "Helwisse folk" 
 was immersion — for an answer to which I cite the reader to my Ch. IV., 
 and especially to pp. 52, 53. The Helwys people did not immerse, but 
 the critic cites us to "contemporaneous evidence" from I. H., 1610, as 
 proof that they did so practice, as follows : "For tell me, shall any one 
 that is baptized in the right forme and manner (for that ye stand much 
 on) upon the skinne be saved?" How he gets immersion by a baptism 
 ''upon the skinne' 1 ' 1 is hard to see. Evidently the sprinkling Puritan re- 
 ferred to the pouring or washing (often accompanied by rubbing) of the 
 "Helwisse folk" who followed the custom of the Mennonites, and about 
 which there was sometimes controversy between the aspersionists and 
 affusionists. Immersion gets the subject into the water, but it was the 
 washing of affusion that applied the water to or "upon the skinne." 
 
 The critic cites John Robinson as declaring that John Morton and his 
 congregation practiced dipping, in the following words: "In the next 
 place they come to baptism in which they think themselves in their ele- 
 ment, as filth in water. And beginning with John's baptism, &c." Mor- 
 ton himself is quoted as declaring his belief that John himself baptized 
 "in Jordan," adding that "this indeed was the practice of the primitive 
 churches." Robinson evidently refers to the contention for believers' 
 baptism by the Anabaptists — always ''beginning with John's baptism — in 
 which, without any allusion to their mode, he represents them "in their 
 element" of controversy "as filth in water." Smyth, Helwys, Morton 
 and other Anabaptists, before 1641 — yea, Mennonites and Pedobaptists — 
 who practiced affusion or aspersion, believed that John baptized in Jor- 
 dan, and they regarded immersion as a mode of baptism. Hence in the 
 light of history these quotations prove nothing as to the practice of Ana- 
 baptists before 1641. I. G[raunt] is cited as showing, in 1645, that Mor- 
 ton, thirty years before, practiced dipping; but I defy the most micro- 
 scopic criticism to show, in that quotation, that Morton ever dipped — by 
 the remotest inference. 
 
 Edmond Jessop (A Discovery of the Errors of the English Anabaptists, 
 1623, p. 62) is cited as stating an Anabaptist error in his version of Col. 
 2:12 ; but his exegesis of that text is in perfect keeping with the Anabap- 
 tist and Pedobaptist view of the time, namely, that the burial and resur- 
 rection symbolism of baptism, whatever the mode, was spiritually 
 synonymous with the circumcision or washing of the heart. See my Ch. 
 IV., pp. 49-51. 
 
 The Critic, under this head, cites Dr. Featley's "Dippers Dipped," &c; 
 but for a complete answer to all he says on this point, I refer the reader 
 to my Ch. XVII., pp. 202-212. Only one point here needs to be noticed. 
 He cites as a fact (Tanner MS. 67.1 15. Acts High Court of Commission, 
 Vol. 434, fol. 81. b., Bodleian Library) that "Barber was before Featley 
 in 1639 for being a dipper" but he gives no quotation. This was very 
 close to 1640-41, but there is no historic evidence that Barber or any of 
 the English Anabaptists were dippers — even if they had been tradition- 
 
Appendix. 275 
 
 ally so called — in the year 1639. Barber was imprisoned in that year for 
 his opposition to infant baptism — was confined for fifteen months and re- 
 leased about 1641, but he was not punished as a "dipper." His Tract 
 and controversy with Barebone, 1 642, imply his admission that the Bap- 
 tists had reassumed immersion very recently — as Barebone shows, about 
 1641 — and he could not have been a "dipper" in 1639. I should be glad 
 to see the quotation to this effect from the authority cited. The Critic 
 often assumes to cite authorities upon his own statement without quoting 
 their language ; and most of his quotations, to say nothing of their 
 strained impertinency, are merely fragmentary and phraseological. On 
 Barber I refer the reader to my Ch. XIV. pp. 163-174 — especially to pp. 
 166-171. 
 
 (CONCLUSION.) 
 
 I have carefully followed the criticisms, so far afloat, against the Jessey 
 Records, or the Kiffin MS., based upon the theory '■'■forgery.'''' The going 
 to press of this volume prevents, here, further notice of what may yet be 
 offered ; but, in my judgment, these criticisms are not only microscop- 
 ically hypercritical and unscholarly, but thoroughly disingenuous and 
 partisan, in their treatment of the subject. In some of them criminal 
 ignorance as to facts which might have been known, is displayed; and if 
 it is not ignorance, then the more culpable crime of garbling, suppression 
 and misrepresentation must be charged. Even where these criticisms had 
 some slight advantage as to minor details which in no way affect the main 
 facts of history," a mountain is made out of a molehill ; " and they have 
 the appearance of a determined stand in favor of a pet theory, right or 
 wrong, without regard to the history of the case. Hence the Jessey 
 Records, or the Kiffin MS., must, at all hazards, be proved a "forgery," 
 which is an unwarranted slander of the documents ; and in order to this 
 a still hunt through the literature of the 17th century is instituted for the 
 purpose — the sequel of which, up to date, is an ignominious failure. 
 These criticisms may gratify the partisan spirit of some and flatter the 
 ignorance of thousands who will not investigate further, and who will be 
 misled into deeper error ; but they will forever be the sport and the con- 
 tempt of scholars and historians. In characterizing these criticisms I do 
 not charge any deliberate design to be dishonest ; but they fairly illustrate 
 the reckless and unfair methods of discussion so often developed by the 
 hysteric weakness and feverish excitement engendered by partisan warfare 
 in religion — in all ages characteristic of traditionalism and sacramentalism. 
 God forbid that, for any reason, we should, intentionally or unintention- 
 ally, be led to suppress, or misrepresent, the truth. 
 
 Further criticisms of the Jessey Records and the Kiffin Manuscript will 
 be considered in this Appendix in the future issues of this volume — if 
 necessary; and in the meanwhile I refer the reader especially to the testi- 
 monies of the 1 7th century writers contained in the foregoing pages, which 
 forever silence the theory of "forgery" applied to the documents in ques- 
 tion. 
 
NDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Act of Uniformity 20 
 
 Adams, Richard, 108, 113, 130 
 
 Adshead, Joseph A., 52 
 
 Affusion, Practice of General Bap- 
 tists, 1609to 1641, 59 
 
 Ainsworth, Henry, 37, 44, 130 
 
 Allen, William, 38, 198, 199 
 
 Allute, G. W., % 47 
 
 Anabaptism, without reference to 
 
 mode, the crime before 1641, 59 
 
 Anabaptists, 
 
 English— no organization be- 
 fore 1611, 68 
 
 First notice of in England, 
 
 1534, 18 
 
 Foreigners, 19 
 
 Position at beginning of Eng- 
 lish Reformation, 80 
 
 Their Doctrines, 18, 19 
 
 Ancient Records, Ep worth— 
 
 Crowle, 51 
 
 Angus, Dr. Joseph, 36, 52 
 
 Dates origin of English Bap- 
 tist churches, 1611-1633, 36 
 
 Antipedobaptism, not charged to 
 the Ancient British Christians,. . 12 
 
 Aquinas, Thomas, 152 
 
 Armitage, Thomas, 13, 44 
 
 Ashton, Robert, 33, 45, 47, 52 
 
 Probability of Smyth's affu- 
 sion, 45 
 
 Smyth and Robinson Contro- 
 versy, 33, 34 
 
 Aspersion, Practice of Particular 
 
 Baptists before 1641, 59 
 
 Austin, Invasion of England (596, 
 
 A.D.), 70 
 
 Demands of British Chris- 
 tians, 9, 10 
 
 Massacre of British Chris- 
 tians, . 9 
 
 Baillie, Robert, 17, 41, 216, 222 
 
 Testimony, 222 
 
 Bampfield, Francis, a Se-Baptist, . . 
 
 66,130, 131 
 
 Document, 128-139 
 
 Prof. Vedder's testimony on, 139 
 Baptism of Anabaptists, 16th cen- 
 tury, 23 
 
 From 1609 to 1641 , Separation, 57 
 
 After 1640-41, 79, 80 
 
 Baptism of the Romanists and 
 
 Welsh, 168, 172, 178 
 
 Baptists, British Christians, first 
 
 300 years, 9 
 
 Baptists,— PAGE 
 
 Antiquity of churches before 
 
 1611-41 traditional, 22 
 
 Church of, in Chester Co., 
 
 Wales (1422) , unknown, 13 
 
 Dutch, poured for baptism,. . 75 
 English, difficulties in way of 
 restoring immersion, 80, 81, 87 
 
 General, Origin of, 29-54 
 
 Growth of, to 1644, ... 41, 58 
 Literature and errors, 42, 43 
 Mode of baptism before 
 
 1641, 44-49 
 
 Relation to the Menno- 
 
 nitestol641, 43 
 
 No trace of their principles 
 
 in England for 558 years,. . . 9 
 Particular, Origin of, .... . .55- 57 
 
 First church, 57 
 
 Growth from 1633 to 
 
 1644, 41, 58 
 
 Mode of baptism before 
 
 1641, 57 
 
 Reformation of, in England, 
 
 founded in Puritanism, 17 
 
 So-called, before restoration 
 
 of baptism, 75 
 
 Supposed traces of elements 
 
 in Wales to 16th century, . . 12 
 Witnesses to restoration of 
 
 immersion, 163-201 
 
 A popish fiction,. . . .260, 261 
 
 A. R[itor], 175, 176 
 
 Anabaptists since call- 
 ed "Baptists" before 
 adopting immersion,. 255 
 Baptists not the daugh- 
 ter of Rome, 261 
 
 Baptists antedate the 
 
 baptism of Christ 250 
 
 Barber and Barebone, . . 
 
 163-174 
 
 Christopher Black- 
 wood, 185, 186 
 
 Daniel King, 187-190 
 
 Francis Cornwell, . .183, 184 
 
 Francis Deane, 182, 183 
 
 Hanserd Knollys, 186 
 
 Hercules Collins, . . .200, 201 
 
 Henry Denne, 184, 185 
 
 Henry Jessey 191-195 
 
 R. B.'s reply to P. B., 176-180 
 Thomas Kilcop's reply 
 
 to P. B., 180-182 
 
 Thomas Lamb, 199, 200 
 
 William Allen, 198, 199 
 
 276 
 
Index. 
 
 277 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Baptists,— 
 
 William Kaye, 195-198 
 
 Separation began, 251 
 
 Succession a recent doc- 
 trine among Baptists, 160 
 
 Baptists, Were they? 250-261 
 
 Believers' baptism cen- 
 tral peculiarity, 257 
 
 Summary of the 17th 
 century Baptist posi- 
 tion, 252, 253 
 
 Reproduction, not visi- 
 ble succession, 257 
 
 Bake well, Thomas, Catabaptism, . 26 
 
 Barber, Edward, 38, 63, 126, 150, 163-174 
 
 Tract and Testimony, . . . .163-174 
 
 Barclay, Robert, 41, 44, 59, 78 
 
 Bards, Welsh, 13 
 
 Barebone, P.,. . . .58, 97, 166, 171, 176, 180 
 Brownist and not a Baptist, . 97 
 
 His reply to Barber, 166, 167 
 
 His reply to R. B., 176-180 
 
 His reply to Spilsbury, 148 
 
 Barrowe, Robert, 17, 19 
 
 Bastwick, Dr., 21 
 
 Batte, John, 61, 100, 115 
 
 Baxter, Richard, 9, 216 
 
 Bede, Venerable, 9 
 
 Bishops, Early British, at Council 
 
 Nice, Aries, etc., 11 
 
 Blackburn, William, 52 
 
 Blacklock, Samuel, 61, 65 
 
 Blackwood, Christopher, 
 
 149, 150, 185, 186 
 
 His testimony, 185, 186 
 
 Blunt, Richard, 61, 62, 63, 65 
 
 Deputed to Holland, 1640, . 62, 63 
 His church probably dis- 
 banded, 65, 66 
 
 Boucher, Joan, burned, 20 
 
 Booking, Church, 22, 54, 63 
 
 Brinsley, John, Catabaptism, 26 
 
 Burnet, Bishop, 72, 80 
 
 Burrage, Henry S., 44 
 
 Busher, Leonard. 42, 53, 163 
 
 Definition of baptism, 42 
 
 Caerleon on Usk, Bishop of 11 
 
 Calamy , Edmund, 
 
 Canne, John, 63, 64, 124 
 
 Baptized man, 1641, 64 
 
 Canterbury, Church, 54 
 
 Catabaptism, 24- 27 
 
 Cathcart, William, 10, 14 
 
 Clarkson, Lawrence, in prison for 
 
 immersion, 164 
 
 Clifford, Dr. John, 52, 106 
 
 Clyfton, Richard, 29, 130 
 
 Cobham, Lord, Lollard Martyr. ... 15 
 
 Collegiants, 73 
 
 Collier, Jeremy, 20 
 
 Collins, Hercules, 38, 200, 201 
 
 His testimony, 200, 201 
 
 Columba, St., 12 
 
 Confessions of Faith, 48, 49, 51 
 
 Of John Smyth, 49 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Confessions of Faith,— 
 
 Of 1611, 48 
 
 Of 1644, 245, 246 
 
 Of 1641, an anti - succession 
 
 document, 258 
 
 Conventicles, Dutch-En glish, at 
 
 close of 16th century, 21 
 
 Cornwell, Francis, 38, 149, 182, 183 
 
 His testimony, 183, 184 
 
 Crosby, Thomas, Historian, 
 
 9, 14, 20, 29, 37, 41, 
 
 55, 56, 59, 62, 64, 67, 69, 72, 74, 
 81, 83, 85, 92, 96, 116, 132, 140, 222 
 His account of the origin of 
 
 the General Baptists, 29 
 
 His account of the origin of 
 
 the Particular Baptists, 55 
 
 His account of the disuse of 
 
 immersion, 68- 78 
 
 His account of the restora- 
 tion of immersion, 79- 90 
 
 His Witnesses, 140-163 
 
 Hutchinson, 142-144 
 
 Spilsbury, 144-151 
 
 Tombes, 152-156 
 
 Lawrence 156 
 
 Grantham, 157 
 
 Toulmin 159 
 
 Neal, 160, 161 
 
 Reliability as an author, 162 
 
 D'Anvers, Henry, 10 
 
 Dean, Francis, Anabaptist Ser- 
 mon, 182, 183 
 
 Denne, Henry, 38, 71, 184, 185 
 
 Imprisoned for dipping, 164 
 
 Testimony, 184, 185 
 
 Dexter, Henry M., 44 
 
 Dippers Undipt, 231 
 
 Donatists, 11 
 
 "New Dipt," 23, 271 
 
 Doopsgezinden, 23, 224, 245 
 
 Downame, George, 73 
 
 Drew, John, his testimony, 228 
 
 Eachard, John, Author, The Loy- 
 
 all Convert, 220 
 
 Easter, Time of Keeping by Early 
 
 British Christians 9- 11 
 
 Eaton, Samuel, 
 
 56, 57, 59, 100, 111, 150, 213 
 
 Edwards, Thomas, Gangraena, 
 
 53, 66, 216, 236 
 
 His Testimony, 236 
 
 Elizabeth, Persecution of the Ana- 
 baptists, 20 
 
 Emmes, 66 
 
 Enemy, The, What He Said,. . . .213-228 
 Author of The Loyall Con- 
 vert, 219 
 
 Book of Common Prayer, 214 
 
 B. Ryves, 125 
 
 Ephraim Pagitt, 217 
 
 I. E. toT. L., 215 
 
 John Drew, 228 
 
 John Eachard, 220 
 
 JohnGeree, 221 
 
278 
 
 Index. 
 
 Enemy,— page 
 
 John Goodwin, 231 
 
 James Parnell, 233 
 
 John Reading, 223 
 
 Josiah Bicraft, 218 
 
 John Saltmarsh, 221 
 
 John Taylor, 213 
 
 Jeffrey Watts, 223 
 
 Nathanael Homes, 220 
 
 Nathanael Stephens, 229 
 
 Robert Baillie, 222 
 
 S. C.'s Reply to A. R., 214 
 
 Stephen Marshall, 222 
 
 Thomas Edwards, 226 
 
 Thomas Wall, 236 
 
 William Cooke, 216 
 
 Episcopacy, of Early British Chris- 
 tians, 12 
 
 Fabian, 9 
 
 Facts, Significant, 239-249 
 
 Baptismal controversy after 
 
 1641, 242 
 
 Health and Decency ques- 
 tion, 246 
 
 Immersion not punished be- 
 fore 1641, 241 
 
 Immersion put into the Con- 
 fession of 1644, 245 
 
 Never called Baptists until 
 
 after 1641, 244 
 
 Old Men and New Men after 
 
 1641,. 247 
 
 Relation between General 
 Baptists and Mennonites 
 
 broken off, 1641, 248 
 
 Silence of History, 239 
 
 17th Century Baptists Sepa- 
 ratists, 240 
 
 Use of the -wordrhantize after 
 
 1641, 248 
 
 Familists, 66 
 
 Featley, Daniel,. .25, 41, 53, 117, 202, 216 
 
 Baptist Dipping (1644), 202-204 
 
 Catabaptism, 25, 209 
 
 "Dippers Dipt," 202-212 
 
 New Leaven of Anabaptis- 
 
 me, 204-206 
 
 "Our Anabaptists in Eng- 
 land," 211, 212 
 
 Zurich Decree of Drowning, 
 
 204-210 
 
 ** Floyer, Sir John, 71, 72 
 
 Font in Place of Baptistery, 70 
 
 Foxe, John, 19, 70, 273 
 
 Fuessli, J. C, 26 
 
 Fuller, Thomas, 19, 70 
 
 Geree, John, Testimony 221 
 
 Gieseler, J. C. 1 26 
 
 Goodwin, John, Catabaptism. . .25, 216 
 
 Testimony, 213 
 
 Gould, George, 91, 117, 118 
 
 Green, "Feltmaker," Brownist, ... 58 
 
 Gunne, Thomas, 62 
 
 Hanbury's Memorials, Ill 
 
 Harrison, Robert, 17, 19 
 
 Henry, Dr. Robert, 13 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Helwys, Thomas, 32, 38, 41, 42, 51, 83 
 
 140, 149, 150, 163 
 Antagonizes Smyth and the 
 
 Mennonites, 40 
 
 Definition of Baptism, 50 
 
 Maintains Smyth's Position, 
 
 32, 33, 37, 39 
 
 The Joshua of the First Bap- 
 tists, 39 
 
 High Commission Court 79 
 
 Hill Cliffe Church, 22, 63 
 
 Hobson, Paul, not a Baptist before 
 
 1641, 63, 64 
 
 Hollanders, Persecuted at Oxford 
 
 1158 13 
 
 First revolt from Rome in 
 
 England, 13 
 
 Homes, Nathanael, Testimony 220 
 
 Hoveden, Roger, 14 
 
 Hutchinson, Edward,. 60, 61, 63, 84, 124 
 Account of Revival of Im- 
 mersion, 142-144 
 
 Immersion : Word never put into 
 an English Baptist Confes- 
 sion until 1644, 51 
 
 Account of its Disuse in Eng- 
 land, 68-70 
 
 Account of its Restoration, 79-90 
 
 Adult first 300 years, 11, 68 
 
 Agitation 1640, 60 
 
 Anti-succession Method, ... 85, 86 
 
 Armitage's Admissions, 90 
 
 Called the "new way" after 
 
 1641, 147 
 
 Conclusion from Crosby's 
 
 Account, 88 
 
 Crime after 1641, 59 
 
 Did not Succeed from John 
 
 Smyth, 83 
 
 In Disuse prior to 1640, 60 
 
 Its restoration a Particular 
 
 Baptist movement, 59 
 
 Ivimey's Account, 88, 89 
 
 Not among Baptists from 300 
 
 A. D. to 1641, 74 
 
 Purely a Baptist Movement, 82 
 
 Regular Method, 84 
 
 Revived, *61 
 
 Subject changed 400 A. D., 
 
 Crosby, 69 
 
 Succession through the Brit- 
 ish churches from 300 to 
 
 1600, 68 
 
 The Discussion, a digression 
 
 of Crosby, . 80 
 
 Three Methods of Restora- 
 tion proposed, 82 
 
 Two Methods of Restoration 
 
 adopted, 83 
 
 Infant Baptism : Probablepractice 
 of the early British Chris- 
 tians, 9 
 
 Ground of Separation 1638, . . 56 
 Practice of the Novatians 
 and Donatists, 206 
 
Index. 
 
 279 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ivimey , Joseph,' 9,' ii," 52, 53, 58,88, 96, 116 
 Accomit of restoration of 
 
 Immersion, 88, 89 
 
 Jacob, Henry, 56 
 
 Jacob-Lathrop Church, Secession 
 
 1633, 56 
 
 Secession 1638, 57 
 
 Secession 1639, 57 
 
 Jessey, Henry, 
 
 58, 65, 66, 67, 97, 150, 191-195 
 
 Became Baptist in 1645, 58 
 
 Confirming the Kiffin MS.,... 102 
 Convinced of Immersion in 
 
 1640-41, 61 
 
 His church Baptist in trans- 
 ition, 58 
 
 His testimony, 191-195 
 
 Mixed-church Communion,.. 58 
 Practiced Infant Immersion 
 
 from 1642, 103 
 
 Jessop, Edmond,.' 37, 44, 130 
 
 Johnson, Francis, 37, 44 
 
 Kaye, William, Testimony, . . . .195-198 
 
 Kiffin, William, 38, 62, 63, 64, 218 
 
 Account of 116-127 
 
 Endorsed Daniel King's Way 
 
 to Sion, 123 
 
 Not immersed before 1641,. . . 124 
 Kiffin Manuscript Examined, . . .91-103 
 
 Confirmations, 100-103 
 
 Objections, 104-115 
 
 Part of the Jessey Records, . . 91 
 
 See Appendix, A, 266 
 
 Used by Crosby as valid his- 
 tory, 98 
 
 Kilcop, Thomas, 38, 62, 63, 181, 182 
 
 His testimony, reply to P.B., 180 
 King, Daniel, ... .38, 124, 150, 151, 187-191 
 
 His testimony, 187-191 
 
 See Appendix, D, 264, 265 
 
 Knollys, Hanserd, 21, 63, 64 
 
 Became an Anabaptist in 1636, 22 
 
 Fled to America, 1636, 22 
 
 Never became a Baptist be- 
 fore 1641, 64 
 
 Pastor of a Baptist church in 
 
 London in 1645, 22 
 
 Perhaps not a Baptist till 
 
 1634, 263 
 
 Reply to Dr. Bastwick, 21, 22 
 
 See Appendix. A, 262 
 
 Lamb, Thomas, 38 
 
 His testimony, 199, 200 
 
 Lathrop, John, 56 
 
 Lawrence, Henry, 38, 63, 122 
 
 His testimony, 156 
 
 Lechler, Gothard, 16 
 
 Lewis, John, 69, 104 
 
 Llewellyn, Prince of Wales con- 
 quered 1282, A. D., 12 
 
 Lollard, Walter, in England 1315, 
 
 A. D., 14 
 
 Lollard Movement crushed in 16th 
 
 Century, 16 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Lollard Movement,— 
 
 Forerunner of the Reforma- 
 tion, 16 
 
 Lollards, Baptist principles of,. .68, 71 
 Lost Ordinances— Baptism,. .31, 32, 
 86, 94, 121, 128, 145, 152, 156, 
 158, 166, 170, 171, 178, 177, 180, 
 183, 187, 188, 189, 192, 197, 198, 200 
 
 Lucar, Mark, 61, 62, 67 
 
 Luther, Martin, 68 
 
 Marshall, Steven, his Testimony, . 222 
 
 Masson, Dr. David, 52, 53 
 
 Mennonites, New Fryelers, 40, 41 
 
 Milton, John, 21, 52 
 
 Morton, John, 32, 38, 
 
 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 83, 140, 150, 163 
 Defends Smyth' s Position ,34, 35 
 
 Mosheim, 10, 36 
 
 Muller, S., 44, 45, 46, 52 
 
 Muncer, Thomas, 236 
 
 Munster, not the Origin of the 
 
 Baptists 68 
 
 Neal, Daniel, 41, 52, 64, 65, 109 
 
 His Blunders, see Appendix, 
 
 A, 265 
 
 His Testimony, 160 
 
 New Baptisme, 147, 166, 
 
 167, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 
 194, 195, 199, 204, 215, 216, 217, 220, 
 221, 223, 225, 226, 228, 230, 231, 235, 236 
 
 Newman, Dr. A. H., 
 
 15, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 44, 50, 67, 125 
 
 New Men, or Immersi, 47, 225 
 
 Noel's Catechism, 72 
 
 Nonconformity of Early British 
 
 Christians, 12 
 
 Novatians, 11 
 
 Oates, Samuel, 38, 228 
 
 Olchon, No evidence of a Baptist 
 
 Church there before 1641, 13 
 
 Old Men, or Aspersi, 48, 225 
 
 Orme, William, 96, 120 
 
 Ottius, J. H., 26 
 
 Pagitt, Ephraim, Heresiography, . 217 
 Parnell, James, his testimony, — 233 
 
 Patient, Thomas, 38, 119, 157 
 
 Patrick, St., 11 
 
 Payne, John, 21 
 
 Pearson, John, 157 
 
 Pelagius, on infant baptism, 5th 
 
 century, 10 
 
 Penry, John, not an immersionist, 
 
 17,21, 24 
 
 Perkins on Galatians, 141 
 
 Petiers, Jan, burned, 20 
 
 Powell, Vavasor, not a Baptist be- 
 fore 1653, 124 
 
 Price, Thomas, 52 
 
 Propagandists of Early Christian- 
 ity in England, 9 
 
 Rapin, 70 
 
 Rauschenbusch, Dr. A 45 
 
 Reformation, Baptist, 
 
 82, 87, 107, 122, 189, 192, 198 
 
28o 
 
 Index. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Revival of Immersion, 61, 
 
 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 94, 114, 125, 
 128, 132, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 148, 
 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 
 166, 170, 171, 176, 177, 179, 183, 184, 
 185, 187, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 198, 200 
 Ricraft, Josiah, Anabaptist Look- 
 ing Glasse, 218 
 
 Ritor, A., 175, 214, 216 
 
 Testimony, 216 
 
 Robinson, John, 32, 37, 44 
 
 Assails Helwy s' baptism , . . 32, 33 
 
 Robinson, Robert, 108 
 
 Ryves, B., testimony, 225 
 
 Saltmarsh, John, testimony, 221 
 
 Sawtry, first Lollard martyr, 15 
 
 Saxon Invasion and Massacre, 70 
 
 Scheff er, de Hoop, J. G. . . 42, 44, 46, 52 
 Schyn, Herman, Catabaptism, . . 23, 25 
 
 Seekers . 66 
 
 Separation^ Baptist,!.' .'ia,' 199,' 213, 218 
 
 Shepard, Thomas, 61, 62, 67 
 
 Shute, Giles, 52 
 
 Smyth, John, 29, 
 
 38, 44, 47, 52, 59, 60, 149, 150, 163 
 
 Baptized by Affusion, 45, 46 
 
 Death, 1612, 45 
 
 Definition of Baptism, 49 
 
 Organization of first Baptist 
 
 Church, 29, 36 
 
 Reply to Clyf ton, repudiates 
 
 visible succession, 31, 32 
 
 Retraction of his Errors, .... 37 
 Self -baptism, ... .29, 31, 43, 44, 82 
 Separation from the Brown- 
 
 Some, Dr. R., 20, 53 
 
 Spanhemius, Fredrick, Catabap- 
 tism, 25 
 
 Spencer, Captain, Brownist, — 57, 58 
 Spilsbury, John, 38, 57, 59, 60, 
 
 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 124, 157, 163, 213 
 One of Crosby's witnesses,.. . 
 
 144-151 
 
 Sprinkling, General, from 1600 to 
 
 1641, 72,73 
 
 By Anabaptists before 1641, . . 
 
 28,59,61,196, 197 
 
 Stephens, Nathaniel, testimony, . . 229 
 
 Stork, Nicholas, 211, 232, 236 
 
 Stovell, Charles, 64 
 
 Strype, John 20, 108 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Succession, Visible and Spiritual,. 
 
 31,69, 78 
 
 Visible succession repudiated 
 
 by the Baptists, 
 
 31,32, 146, 150, 185, 189 
 
 Taylor, Adam, General Baptist 
 
 Historian, 37, 52 
 
 Taylor, John, 100, 111, 114 
 
 Testimony, 213 
 
 Terwoot, Hendrik, burned, 20 
 
 Thomas, Joshua, 12 
 
 Tombes, Dr. John, 38, 63, 126, 151 
 
 One of Crosby's witnesses,.. . 
 
 152-156 
 
 Tookey, Blias, 42 
 
 To Sion's Virgins, definition of 
 
 baptism, 50 
 
 Turner, Dr.William, Catabaptism, 
 
 Immersion, 24, 26, 27 
 
 See Appendix, E, 271 
 
 Tyndale, John, 16, 17, 72 
 
 Usher, Archbishop, 14 
 
 Vedder, Henry O, 20, 22, 44, 138 
 
 Van Braght, Tileman,, 23 
 
 Waldenses, 13, 14, 70, 73 
 
 "Wales, under the darkness of Ro- 
 manism down to 16th Cen- 
 tury, 13 
 
 First Baptist church in, 1649, 13 
 
 Walker, Williston, 112 
 
 Wall, Thomas, 44, 52 
 
 Testimony, 236 
 
 Waterlanders, Aspersionists, — 45, 46 
 John Smyth sought admis- 
 sion among, 38, 46 
 
 Watts, Jeffry, on Sprinkling in 
 
 England, 72, 225 
 
 Strong Witness, Novelty of 
 
 Immersion, 223 
 
 Welsh Protestantism in England 
 
 finally destroyed, 1282, 12 
 
 Welsh lately left off immersion,. . 71 
 
 Wesley, John, 72 
 
 Whitsitt, Dr. Wm. H., 
 
 15, 44, 99, 165, 212, 239 
 
 Wilson, W., 52 
 
 Wrighters, became a Seeker, 66 
 
 Wyckliff e, John never left the Ro- 
 mish Church, 15, 68 
 
 Baptist Principles, 68, 71 
 
 Zanchius, 152 
 
 Zwingle, Ulrich, Catabaptism, — 24 
 
MAS £x 189S 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: April 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnoiogies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111